A7V dynamic range is extremely good
p.7 #1A7V dynamic range is extremely good
tctmp wrote:
I don't think the 2x read speed during ES can be measured? If the pixel values stayed the same between the two reads, then the rolling shutter effect to derive the read speed will only reflect 1x read speed. if the pixel values continue to accumulate between the two reads, then DGO is only accurate for long shutter speeds where the delay between the two reads is negligible compared to the shutter speed.The 2x read speed is based on video mode measurements, where on the S1 II's DGO can be turned on/off with a user setting.But what's the observation? You have double number of the bands when it's on? if that's the case, does that mean the two reads are not one read across the sensor, then another read across the sensor. Rather, one read across say 8 rows, then another read across the same 8 rows, then move on to the next 8 rows? I suppose that makes some sense.Double the bands. I've done a bunch of experiments on the S1 II to answer the very question you're asking, which included a very high-frequency banding generator (running on code I wrote on an Arduino) to check for any stratification of reads between rows/groups of rows.But then I don't see why ES can't be enabled. Other than 2x the rolling shutter, I don't see other ill effects or extra work needed. Just let users choose then.
Clearly DGO w/ES could theoretically be enabled since that's exactly what's done for video mode. I've theorized Panasonic chose not to due to their preference for speed over IQ for ES in previous firmware decisions, like dropping to 12-bits on their shutterless S9. I'm guessing Sony chose not to enable EGO since the ES is used for their high-speed shooting modes, and having different levels of IQ and rolling shutter across different shooting modes (had Sony elected to enable DGO w/ES when possible for the slower modes that don't need the fastest readout speed) would've been seen by Sony as confusing to users.
snapsy wrote
tctmp wrote
snapsy wrote
tctmp wrote
snapsy wrote
Edited my reply: Presumably it operates up until the dual gain ISO, since that's the point the tapering benefit would completely disappear. The only way to tell for sure would be to measure the readout time of each ISO to see where the 2x readout ends, but measuring that obviously is nearly impossible with the mechanical shutter.Clearly DGO w/ES could theoretically be enabled since that's exactly what's done for video mode. I've theorized Panasonic chose not to due to their preference for speed over IQ for ES in previous firmware decisions, like dropping to 12-bits on their shutterless S9. I'm guessing Sony chose not to enable EGO since the ES is used for their high-speed shooting modes, and having different levels of IQ and rolling shutter across different shooting modes (had Sony elected to enable DGO w/ES when possible for the slower modes that don't need the fastest readout speed) would've been seen by Sony as confusing to users.
Dec 12, 2025 at 10:44 AM
p.7 #2A7V dynamic range is extremely good
It’s looking like it’ll be some of the best image quality that Sony has ever produced 🙌🙌🙌.
chez wrote:
First, if the dual output gain obscures the effect of baked-in noise reduction, then Bill Claff's replacing the inverted triangles by circles is questionable. The 1.5 DR stops difference between the mechanical and electronic shutters is surprisingly large. I am not sure this can be explained by the dual output gain alone. Basically, now it is impossible to tell whether A7V employs some form of noise reduction, or does something else entirely.
Other things invite questions. Like, why the dual output gain couldn't be implemented with the ES? This is not a technical impossibility in general, as demonstrated by Panasonic G9II. Next, why the "conventional" dual-gain ISO changed from 400 on A7IV to 1000 on A7V? Also, why this has no effect on the DR at ISO 1000 with the MS? Should this be understood as implying that the dual output gain is active only in the 100 - 800 ISO range? Is this just a coincidence that the two DR curves, with the ES and MS shutters, merge at 1000 ISO?
The last thing is that in science important findings are not widely accepted until independently confirmed. The work of Bill Claff is highly respected, yet he made an unexplained mistake when he reported the PDR of Panasonic G9II with ES. I am willing to trust Bill, yet it is important to collect more observations on the DR of A7V. As I already mentioned this, if I had the camera, I would've collected a series of dark frames with the ES and MS, at base ISO, while warying shutter speeds in the 1s to 1/250s range for the ES. Some real-life examples of shadow recovery with ES vs MS should also be useful,again with relatively fast SS, e.g. from 1/60s.What’s this picture thing you talk about?
chez wrote:
ronno wrote
It will be a less confusing camera when people start using it to make pictures, rather than treating it like a science project.ruthenium wrote
A7V is a confusing camera.First, if the dual output gain obscures the effect of baked-in noise reduction, then Bill Claff's replacing the inverted triangles by circles is questionable. The 1.5 DR stops difference between the mechanical and electronic shutters is surprisingly large. I am not sure this can be explained by the dual output gain alone. Basically, now it is impossible to tell whether A7V employs some form of noise reduction, or does something else entirely.
Other things invite questions. Like, why the dual output gain couldn't be implemented with the ES? This is not a technical impossibility in general, as demonstrated by Panasonic G9II. Next, why the "conventional" dual-gain ISO changed from 400 on A7IV to 1000 on A7V? Also, why this has no effect on the DR at ISO 1000 with the MS? Should this be understood as implying that the dual output gain is active only in the 100 - 800 ISO range? Is this just a coincidence that the two DR curves, with the ES and MS shutters, merge at 1000 ISO?
The last thing is that in science important findings are not widely accepted until independently confirmed. The work of Bill Claff is highly respected, yet he made an unexplained mistake when he reported the PDR of Panasonic G9II with ES. I am willing to trust Bill, yet it is important to collect more observations on the DR of A7V. As I already mentioned this, if I had the camera, I would've collected a series of dark frames with the ES and MS, at base ISO, while warying shutter speeds in the 1s to 1/250s range for the ES. Some real-life examples of shadow recovery with ES vs MS should also be useful,again with relatively fast SS, e.g. from 1/60s.
Dec 12, 2025 at 10:46 AM
p.7 #3A7V dynamic range is extremely good
chez wrote:
What’s this picture thing you talk about?
Not every minute is conductive to taking pictures. Proof, you are not taking pictures right now.
Except for some people, when they are not taking pictures, they are talking about cameras.
For others like you, when you are not taking pictures, you are talking about people who are talking about cameras.
ronno wrote
It will be a less confusing camera when people start using it to make pictures, rather than treating it like a science project.Not every minute is conductive to taking pictures. Proof, you are not taking pictures right now.
Except for some people, when they are not taking pictures, they are talking about cameras.
For others like you, when you are not taking pictures, you are talking about people who are talking about cameras.
Dec 12, 2025 at 10:50 AM
p.7 #4A7V dynamic range is extremely good
tctmp wrote:
What’s this picture thing you talk about?Not every minute is conductive to taking pictures. Proof, you are not taking pictures right now.
Except for some people, when they are not taking pictures, they are talking about cameras.
For others like you, when you are not taking pictures, you are talking about people who are talking about cameras.
Sure, there’s a line…but it seems many cross that line and enjoy more the technicalities within the cameras than what those cameras can produce. How much does that extra 3% of dynamic range really matter in actual use…no one discusses this…instead it’s graphs and charts digging deep for that 3%.
I guess right when photography entered the digital world, the bit heads would follow.
chez wrote
ronno wrote
It will be a less confusing camera when people start using it to make pictures, rather than treating it like a science project.Except for some people, when they are not taking pictures, they are talking about cameras.
For others like you, when you are not taking pictures, you are talking about people who are talking about cameras.
Sure, there’s a line…but it seems many cross that line and enjoy more the technicalities within the cameras than what those cameras can produce. How much does that extra 3% of dynamic range really matter in actual use…no one discusses this…instead it’s graphs and charts digging deep for that 3%.
I guess right when photography entered the digital world, the bit heads would follow.
Dec 12, 2025 at 11:49 AM
p.7 #5A7V dynamic range is extremely good
chez wrote:
What’s this picture thing you talk about?Not every minute is conductive to taking pictures. Proof, you are not taking pictures right now.
Except for some people, when they are not taking pictures, they are talking about cameras.
For others like you, when you are not taking pictures, you are talking about people who are talking about cameras.Sure, there’s a line…but it seems many cross that line and enjoy more the technicalities within the cameras than what those cameras can produce. How much does that extra 3% of dynamic range really matter in actual use…no one discusses this…instead it’s graphs and charts digging deep for that 3%.
I guess right when photography entered the digital world, the bit heads would follow.
I dont know where your 3% number come from. I think that's just something you made up to fit your narrative. The last part of the discussion is concentrated on the difference between MS and ES that's more than 1 stop. That's 100% extra noise and will certainly make me pay attention and think hard to decide which one to use.
I have certainly noticed noise difference from 100 to 200 to 400 on top end Nikon and Sony cameras and always try to balance iso and speed. And no, I'm not going to provide photos so that you can argue it doesnt make a difference. It's not your call at all. Whether you consider difference between 10 or 11 stops DR matters is totally not my concern.
The issue with some of you is that you think your line is the only line and want to insist it on others. That's just arrogant. IMHO, many of the pictures I saw here (including some of yours) certainly are not worthwhile to lug a real camera or a nice lens for, a phone will work plenty well. But I dont go to those threads and post that you are wasting your camera and should just use a phone instead. It's not my business. I hope you understand that it's not your business either when people discuss which cameras they like better.
tctmp wrote
chez wrote
ronno wrote
It will be a less confusing camera when people start using it to make pictures, rather than treating it like a science project.Except for some people, when they are not taking pictures, they are talking about cameras.
For others like you, when you are not taking pictures, you are talking about people who are talking about cameras.
I guess right when photography entered the digital world, the bit heads would follow.
I dont know where your 3% number come from. I think that's just something you made up to fit your narrative. The last part of the discussion is concentrated on the difference between MS and ES that's more than 1 stop. That's 100% extra noise and will certainly make me pay attention and think hard to decide which one to use.
I have certainly noticed noise difference from 100 to 200 to 400 on top end Nikon and Sony cameras and always try to balance iso and speed. And no, I'm not going to provide photos so that you can argue it doesnt make a difference. It's not your call at all. Whether you consider difference between 10 or 11 stops DR matters is totally not my concern.
The issue with some of you is that you think your line is the only line and want to insist it on others. That's just arrogant. IMHO, many of the pictures I saw here (including some of yours) certainly are not worthwhile to lug a real camera or a nice lens for, a phone will work plenty well. But I dont go to those threads and post that you are wasting your camera and should just use a phone instead. It's not my business. I hope you understand that it's not your business either when people discuss which cameras they like better.
Dec 12, 2025 at 12:44 PM
p.7 #6A7V dynamic range is extremely good
The last part of the discussion is concentrated on the difference between MS and ES that's more than 1 stop. That's 100% extra noise and will certainly make me pay attention and think hard to decide which one to use.
I'm not calling out your post specifically, rather just making an observation - but it's funny how on this forum, a 1-stop difference in dynamic range is a huge amount when it supports the poster's argument, but it's insignificant when it doesn't...
Dec 12, 2025 at 01:03 PM
p.7 #7A7V dynamic range is extremely good
ronno wrote:
It will be a less confusing camera when people start using it to make pictures, rather than treating it like a science project.
ruthenium wrote
A7V is a confusing camera.First, if the dual output gain obscures the effect of baked-in noise reduction, then Bill Claff's replacing the inverted triangles by circles is questionable. The 1.5 DR stops difference between the mechanical and electronic shutters is surprisingly large. I am not sure this can be explained by the dual output gain alone. Basically, now it is impossible to tell whether A7V employs some form of noise reduction, or does something else entirely.
Other things invite questions. Like, why the dual output gain couldn't be implemented with the ES? This is not a technical impossibility in general, as demonstrated by Panasonic G9II. Next, why the "conventional" dual-gain ISO changed from 400 on A7IV to 1000 on A7V? Also, why this has no effect on the DR at ISO 1000 with the MS? Should this be understood as implying that the dual output gain is active only in the 100 - 800 ISO range? Is this just a coincidence that the two DR curves, with the ES and MS shutters, merge at 1000 ISO?
The last thing is that in science important findings are not widely accepted until independently confirmed. The work of Bill Claff is highly respected, yet he made an unexplained mistake when he reported the PDR of Panasonic G9II with ES. I am willing to trust Bill, yet it is important to collect more observations on the DR of A7V. As I already mentioned this, if I had the camera, I would've collected a series of dark frames with the ES and MS, at base ISO, while warying shutter speeds in the 1s to 1/250s range for the ES. Some real-life examples of shadow recovery with ES vs MS should also be useful,again with relatively fast SS, e.g. from 1/60s.
A7V offers choices and options: MS, EFCS, ES. How do YOU decide? You must be an experienced photographer, since you don't think that the A7V should be confusing in use. Can you teach me, what is the right choice of the shutter on this camera, and if different shutters should be used under different circumstances, when should this happen?
Dec 12, 2025 at 02:17 PM
p.7 #8A7V dynamic range is extremely good
Disregard.
(I'm sorry, I posted something stupid.)
Edited on Dec 13, 2025 at 01:07 AM · View previous versions
(I'm sorry, I posted something stupid.)
Edited on Dec 13, 2025 at 01:07 AM · View previous versions
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:03 PM
p.7 #9A7V dynamic range is extremely good
Going to interrupt the bickering to report that apparently there is no NR happening: it’s dual gain output: (which does not work with super fast shutter speeds, thus EC has less D.R.)
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/confirmed-sony-a7-v-is-employing-dual-gain-output-dgo-to-achieve-outstanding-dynamic-range/
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/confirmed-sony-a7-v-is-employing-dual-gain-output-dgo-to-achieve-outstanding-dynamic-range/
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:23 PM
p.7 #10A7V dynamic range is extremely good
ronno wrote:
Going to interrupt the bickering to report that apparently there is no NR happening: it’s dual gain output: (which does not work with super fast shutter speeds, thus EC has less D.R.)
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/confirmed-sony-a7-v-is-employing-dual-gain-output-dgo-to-achieve-outstanding-dynamic-range/
I don't believe anyone except Sony can tell with any confidence whether there is or isn't baked-in raw noise reduction.
Also the following statement from that article could be correct if the dual gain with the ES happened at ISO 400 or 500. At ISO 1000, this isn't "the perfect ground" in the true sense of "perfect":
"I think Sony has found the perfect middle ground: outstanding dynamic range with the mechanical shutter (10 fps is more than enough for most users), and when you really need ultimate speed, you can push it up to 30 fps using the electronic shutter."
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:31 PM
|
p.7 #11A7V dynamic range is extremely good
Yes, who knows.
But it sounds like the guy who originally tested and said there was noise reduction has reevaluated and rescinded that opinion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/haters-silenced-bill-claff-re-tests-the-sony-a7v-dynamic-range-king-even-with-nr-off/
Anyway, I am off this topic now, as it probably doesn’t matter anyway. No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
But it sounds like the guy who originally tested and said there was noise reduction has reevaluated and rescinded that opinion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/haters-silenced-bill-claff-re-tests-the-sony-a7v-dynamic-range-king-even-with-nr-off/
Anyway, I am off this topic now, as it probably doesn’t matter anyway. No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:38 PM
p.7 #12A7V dynamic range is extremely good
ronno wrote:
Yes, who knows.
But it sounds like the guy who originally tested and said there was noise reduction has reevaluated and rescinded that opinion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/haters-silenced-bill-claff-re-tests-the-sony-a7v-dynamic-range-king-even-with-nr-off/
Anyway, I am off this topic now, as it probably doesn’t matter anyway. No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
Not sure if you noticed, but both PetaPixel and SAR wrote their articles based on research done by @snapsy
...
snapsy wrote:
I reached out to Bill about the S1 II DGO/NR FFTs and he has revised his A7V measurements to no longer indicate NR:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/revised-sony-ilce-7m5-sensor-measurements-at-photonstophotos-net.4824332/
Yes, who knows.
But it sounds like the guy who originally tested and said there was noise reduction has reevaluated and rescinded that opinion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/haters-silenced-bill-claff-re-tests-the-sony-a7v-dynamic-range-king-even-with-nr-off/
Anyway, I am off this topic now, as it probably doesn’t matter anyway. No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
Not sure if you noticed, but both PetaPixel and SAR wrote their articles based on research done by @snapsy
...snapsy wrote:
I reached out to Bill about the S1 II DGO/NR FFTs and he has revised his A7V measurements to no longer indicate NR:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/revised-sony-ilce-7m5-sensor-measurements-at-photonstophotos-net.4824332/
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:53 PM
p.7 #13A7V dynamic range is extremely good
j4nu wrote:
But it sounds like the guy who originally tested and said there was noise reduction has reevaluated and rescinded that opinion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/haters-silenced-bill-claff-re-tests-the-sony-a7v-dynamic-range-king-even-with-nr-off/
Anyway, I am off this topic now, as it probably doesn’t matter anyway. No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.Not sure if you noticed, but both PetaPixel and SAR wrote their articles based on research done by @snapsy@@@@ ...
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/revised-sony-ilce-7m5-sensor-measurements-at-photonstophotos-net.4824332/
Yes, snapsy is the man here with the detailed technical explanation.
I still would have preferred sony to have introduced something like ES high fidelity mode where DGO is enabled. MS can still potentially introduce shutter shock.
ronno wrote
Yes, who knows.But it sounds like the guy who originally tested and said there was noise reduction has reevaluated and rescinded that opinion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/haters-silenced-bill-claff-re-tests-the-sony-a7v-dynamic-range-king-even-with-nr-off/
Anyway, I am off this topic now, as it probably doesn’t matter anyway. No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
...snapsy wrote
I reached out to Bill about the S1 II DGO/NR FFTs and he has revised his A7V measurements to no longer indicate NR:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/revised-sony-ilce-7m5-sensor-measurements-at-photonstophotos-net.4824332/
Yes, snapsy is the man here with the detailed technical explanation.
I still would have preferred sony to have introduced something like ES high fidelity mode where DGO is enabled. MS can still potentially introduce shutter shock.
Dec 12, 2025 at 04:33 PM
p.7 #14A7V dynamic range is extremely good
ronno wrote:
No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
You must be new to Internet forums...
No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.
You must be new to Internet forums...
Dec 12, 2025 at 04:37 PM
p.7 #15A7V dynamic range is extremely good
Ha nope. I’ve seen it all before 😭.
Cliff L. wrote:
You must be new to Internet forums...
Cliff L. wrote:
ronno wrote
No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.Dec 12, 2025 at 05:04 PM
p.7 #16A7V dynamic range is extremely good
ruthenium wrote:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/confirmed-sony-a7-v-is-employing-dual-gain-output-dgo-to-achieve-outstanding-dynamic-range/I don't believe anyone except Sony can tell with any confidence whether there is or isn't baked-in raw noise reduction.
If the A7V sensor matches the behavior of their 24MP variant in the Z6III/S1 II, the ES demonstrates very little NR on the FFTs, which means the MS/DGO likely doesn't have it either (ie, it would be strange for Sony to only apply NR for the mechanical shutter and not the ES as wel).
ronno wrote
Going to interrupt the bickering to report that apparently there is no NR happening: it’s dual gain output: (which does not work with super fast shutter speeds, thus EC has less D.R.)https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/confirmed-sony-a7-v-is-employing-dual-gain-output-dgo-to-achieve-outstanding-dynamic-range/
If the A7V sensor matches the behavior of their 24MP variant in the Z6III/S1 II, the ES demonstrates very little NR on the FFTs, which means the MS/DGO likely doesn't have it either (ie, it would be strange for Sony to only apply NR for the mechanical shutter and not the ES as wel).
Dec 12, 2025 at 06:42 PM
p.7 #17A7V dynamic range is extremely good
Cliff L. wrote:
You must be new to Internet forums...
Yep, gimme the raw cause I want to look at each pixel of every corner.
ronno wrote
No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.Yep, gimme the raw cause I want to look at each pixel of every corner.
Dec 12, 2025 at 07:05 PM
p.7 #18A7V dynamic range is extremely good
the myth is busted. in my sleep, just tested the theory and its sound. its a plain as day, everyone has the info already, you just need to put it together. think outside the box , im not giving any hints yet, it will be fun just watching all the confusion.
Dec 13, 2025 at 04:34 AM
p.7 #19A7V dynamic range is extremely good
Cliff L. wrote:
ronno wrote
No one looking at the pictures is going to know (or care) if there was a bit of NR or not 😉.Has anyone tested whether the sensor in the V supports 3D pop better than the one in the IV?
Dec 13, 2025 at 05:41 AM