You’re welcome! In this video I mistakenly said the A7RIV has the same second gain stage of ISO640 but I meant to say the A9II. The A7RIV has a lower gain conversion point, I think it’s ISO320.
Thank you for this info. I had no idea this happens. Will now use iso 80-160 and avoid 200-320 by going straight to 400 on my A74. Can you let’s know if there is a ‘reset’ higher up the range? If so where do we avoid for best results.
Great video. It would be nice if you put your findings in the description of your video. Use ISO 100-125 or a7iv 400, a7iii 640 a1 500, for the most dynamic range and the least amount of noise in your image.
WOW WOW WOW.. Thank you for clarifying and showing examples. This is going to help me immensely If i am over ISO 160 on my A73. I can just shoot at ISO 640 at that point for the next gain reset.
Thank you, as an owner of A7iv, A1 and A7C, this is very useful information. I may start setting my ISO manually to second gain, rather than leaving on automatic. I photograph wildlife, and often have to heavily crop.
If I ever use Auto ISO, I do set my lower limit to the start of the second gain stage to avoid those noisy, low dynamic range points just before the high conversion gain stage starts.
This was an excellent video, thank you! I am still shooting the A99ii, which uses the same sensor as the A7rii and A7riii, but I never knew about this. I have just tested it myself, with no lens attached (just body cap), and the difference between ISO400 and ISO500 is immense! It also means that the difference between ISO800 and ISO320 is almost nothing - such awesome info to have after so long using this system. Thanks a lot for this, I really do appreciate it!
Iso 640 is super clean on the Riii sensor as it is the second gain stage start point. I try to be at 100 or 640 always if it can work for the shot. The sensor gets noisy quick. I personally won't go above 1600 and even then it rubs me wrong sometimes.
Higher resolution doesn’t collect less light, an individual pixel collects less light but there’s more of them, collecting as much light (signal) across the picture. You shouldn’t get much of a difference in noise when viewing the same image a the same size with higher res over similar sensor tech unless you’re cropping etc.
Yes ! The sensor on the a7sIII its a real 48mp in a quad pixel Bayer binding so the output it’s 12mp! But each sub pixel can be set to different parameters, im this way u archive fantastic dynamic range.
If you look at graph from precise low light test, you can clearly see an a7c 24mp perform better than a7iv with 33mp, across all the range but clearly over 640 iso. Clearly test indicates than you shouldn’t go over 3200 iso in a 61mp when a7c can go easily over 6400 iso and even more. So bigger pixel have an importance, not the number of pixels. I prefer my 24mp a7c over a7iv, a7cii and a7rv or a7cr. I think it is best hybrid at reasonable price.
Technically, noise does not come from a lack of signal, and you cannot test SNR without signal calibration. When you plug in two different microphones into an audio interface to test their noise floors, you cannot just turn the gain knob to the max and compare that way, because they might have different sensitivities.
Thanks for doing this. I just had a photoshoot with a large group yesterday and had my A74 at ISO 320 😩and was wondering why it was so grainy! Good to know to just skip to ISO 400. Denoise is helping and a bunch of lightroom work.
Thanks for this trick! im shooting with apsc and i found how noisy that sensor is. This has been helpful to understand the capabilities of my camera more than ever.
I compared the A7IV and A7III read noise data on the famous site photonstophotos. Above ISO 500, the A7IV has 50% more read noise that the A7IV in DN units (power). This is not a big effect, as the noise is small. But it is easily observable. This represents a 0,5 shift in log2(DN) that are used on this graph. I have no explanation for this. The read noise should not depend on the pixel sizes. But the reading electronics might be slightly different. On the other hand, the size of the pixels for A7IV is roughly 28% smaller that for A7III . (33 Mpixels versus 24 Mpixels) Therefore, the "shot noise" for the A7IV should be 14% higher than for A7III. This is because the shot noise is proportional to the square root of the number of photons detected. This is important because in fair illumination, shot noise always dominates over read noise. I think I will try to measure this shot noise. I just realized this should not be too difficult. But I would need a reasonnably uniform illumination of the sensor. This uniformity would allow an easy estimation of the standard deviation (stdev) of the signal over all the pixels. This is a way to measure the noise. I already measured the read noise for my A7III for 37 different ISO numbers. Retrieving these 37 "full dark" pictures and calculating the stdev, I could reproduce exactly the same results as on the site photonstophotos. By myself. Boy! The comparison is really almost perfect. But my first attempt had shown a slight difference at low ISO. I just discovered that evaluatiog the stdev over all the 24Mpixels was not a good idea. Because there are slight variation of the average dark signal. To get this perfect agreement, I simply had to calculate the stdev over a smaller area of 200x200 pixels. And this is what I will also do with a fair uniform illumination to measure the shot noise.
Dude this is awesome. Thanks for sharing, this is exactly what I was looking for. I wish I had known the sweet spots for all the years I had the A7iii. I just jumped to the A1 and I will absolutely put this knowledge to use.
Erik, I’d like to hear your thoughts on “iso invariance”, meaning (on the A7iv for example) that all ISOs 400 and above are supposedly the same and only differ by exposure compensation. Meaning a shot that would require ISO 3200 via the camera’s metering would have exactly the same noise if taken at ISO400 and bumped 3 stops in Lightroom. If true, I’m not sure how to think about the practical implications except perhaps that one should always err towards under exposure in dark scenes…
I find the white dots in the dark areas very distracting on iso 6400 and 300% crop. Try shooting that with lens cap on. Lots of white dots everywhere. Your's the same?
7:22 - this is not really accurate I think, not if you mean "restoring all of the dynamic range". The point of the low gain stage is to have the maximum dynamic range, but that means that low-light areas collect less accurate information. When you enter the high gain stage, you get less noise, but in turn, give up some dynamic range. You can think of this as having buckets for collecting the light. A big bucket can collect more light (high dynamic range), but measuring small amounts of light off of them is not as accurate (more noise). At the high gain stage threshold, you switch over to use small buckets, where you have less noise but also lower dynamic range. But increasing the amplification also reduces the dynamic range, and switching to the high gain circuit reduces the amplification, so you will restore *some* of the dynamic range, but not to the level the lowest ISO on the lower base ISO has. Dan Fox did a great job in explaining how the dual base ISO works in his video "ISO on Sony cameras is often INCREDIBLY misunderstood". If you meant that switching to the high gain circuitry restores *some* of the dynamic range, then I was going on rambling about something you already knew - but anyway, perhaps this was not clear to all viewers...
You have just blown my mind! I have never heard of Sony's Dual Gain ISO. I have the 3 and 4 versions of these cameras. Honestly, I couldn't see any different on my phone screen. So, I switched over to my monitor and I still couldn't see much difference on my screen. But, I trust your voice and if you are seeing it, I believe you. I'm shocked! I'm better off with 400 than anything after 160!?! That's kind of important. I need to watch this video again. These details will definitely improve my images and I feel like they should be written down somewhere as the Gospel. Can you make a list of where all the range jumps are through the spectrum? Please don't make me do this experiment myself. Thanks for this eye-opening comparison.
You’re very welcome. Make sure you watch it on a better screen, set the playback resolution to 4K and turn the brightness all the way up on your screen. There’s only one gain conversion point for each camera and the A7IV is different from the A7III. The A7IV has much better dynamic range and the noise is relatively the same as the A7III but at a much more useable range in my opinion.
@@erikdurnall9585 Thank you so much. I just watched this again and I'm still blown away. I have researched every aspect of these cameras, but you are the only person I've ever seen talk about this topic. This explains so much about what I'm seeing in my own images. And, you described it so well. Can't wait to see more from you. :D
@@LHazle you’re very welcome! I’m so glad you found it helpful. My purpose for making this video was to try to give a visual example of what is going on, as I find that most people (including myself) find looking at various multi-colored overlayed line graphs to be of very little value. Thanks again!
Knowing the base iso of a camera can be important sometimes, but it's more noticeable when filming. The Fuji xt-4 sits at iso 640, arri Alexa at 800 and so on, and high end models can sometimes have a 'dual' base iso. It's not intuitive either to think that you would get a cleaner image when filming in dim light, if you went up to iso 2000 from say 1600 for some specific cameras.
@@tomastuoma this isn’t about Fujifilm cameras, this is specifically about Sony Full Frame cameras that do have dual base ISO, and it also applies to the relative ISO ranges of the selected Picture Profile gammas in video.
A question, is the second gain stage where the "star eater" problem began? Is this still a problem, or are stars in the night sky exempt from the clean-up process? My old Sony a6000 drove me nuts until someone figured out that at a certain point, Sony was doing some sort of image cleanup--even in raw files, that removed many stars from night photos.
AWESOME VIDEO! I've wondered about this. I am a Nikon shooter; however, I ventured into mirrorless with Sony. I have a 6300, A7 II and an A7 IV. I also have a 1.8 85mm Sony lens. I could see all of the noise. I have a really good noise suppression plug in; however, I lose a lot of detail. I want to use my Sonys more for professional shoots, but there is just too much noise. I'm going to take your advice and try and use ISO 100 and/or 400. Thanks for this video!
Great video, im looking to upgrade A7III to A7RIII or A7IV and this comparison was pretty interesting, one thing that i would wish to see is comparison on higher ISO's, but nevertheless I still think that Sony A7III holds the crown as the best Sony’s low light camera
I do wildlife photography with the A7R IV, due to rapidly changing conditions and fast speeds I run auto ISO. In good sunlight I just rock 1/1250 shutter and ISO does its own thing, but on the weekend I took some shots in good light and they were noisy as heck, ISO was sticking around 320. But now I think im going to have to change my shooting style, maybe in strong light I just need to set to ISO 640 and then just adjust shutter if need be. Shutter will be quick enough no matter what so its worth a shot
Unfortunately the A7RIV has a lower gain conversion point then what I state in this video. When I say the A7RIV I actually meant to say A9II. The gain conversion point for the A7RIV is actually ISO320 in RAW stills, so if ISO320 is too noisy then a higher ISO value isn’t going to improve your results.
@@erikdurnall9585 Ah ok thanks for letting me know. Strange because I thought ive also heard from another video that ISO 640 is the cleanest for A7R IV, but like I said ISO was all over the place, looking at the photos from the weekend (of a black bird) they were ISO 320, 400, 500. I guess its just the fact of the high dynamic range of the black bird and bright background
@@erikdurnall9585 I have the A1, A7iii, A7Riii and A7Riv. The A7Riv is the noisiest one by a mile. I mean, it starts off noisy at it's base ISO and just goes up from there. Having said that, I still have no problem shooting interiors professionally with the A7Riv to 1000 ISO or so. It's not that the noise isn't there, because it most certainly is, but rather the practical implications of the noise are a lot less problematic than a lot of folks make it out to be, even for paid work.
Thank you so much. Isn’t there another sweet spot in terms of ISO versus noise level up around 6400 in the A7IV? I thought I saw some information on that.
You’re welcome! There isn’t another sweet spot for RAW images, you may be thinking of using picture profiles in video. In the Slog3 Picture Profile the base ISO is ISO800 and the second gain stage is ISO3200 but this is the same as ISO100 and ISO400 in RAW still images, it’s just relative to the selected gamma of the picture profile. I wanted to keep this example as basic as possible so I didn’t go into all of that in this particular video.
Really useful video many thanks. I have just recenty purchased a Sony A7iv and a Sony GM 70-200mm f2.8 OSS II and am starting to shoot astrophotography, trying out deep sky objects, so I'm dealing with very low signals and as a result I need long exposures and maximum magnification and maximum cropping of my images. I'm using ISO 400 on the A7iv as this gives me the maximum dynamic range and minimal noise. However, I didn't know that this is where the second stage amplication kicks in. Good to know. Once again many thanks for your very informative video. I really like your stuff as you delve into the details while making it very understandable.
You are very welcome. ISO400 on the A7IV is amazing. The noise is nearly the same as ISO100 and you get a significant amount of dynamic range back as well. Enjoy!
Funny was shoot at iso 200. Worried about noise ! Ha. Stuck in crop sensor mindset. Also. But good to here about this on Full frame a7iv. Transitioning. Thank you !
Yes. ISO400 is almost identical to ISO100 on the A7IV. For RAW still images you have a lot of range for very clean images well beyond ISO1600. For video with picture profile Off, it is the same ISO ranges. If you are using a Picture Profile like Slog3, which on the A7IV has a base ISO of ISO800, your second gain stage would start at ISO3200 and you would still be seeing very useable footage at ISO12800
Thx great video. I think I will jump 100 to 400 on my a7.4 in future. BUT what is the situation with large compressed raw which I shoot and probably many others please
How about In the older A7 II that are still In stores, I have It, I'm guessing that It doesn't have this sweet spot In the higher ISO at all. I will have to try It out?
Why would thay do that? Also no information about it.. 1..thabk you. 2. I feel frasutraed needed to close my aperture and use lower iso instead knowing i can use higher iso with same results while keeping more thing i needed in focus
Great and informative video! Does this apply to video on the a7iik as well? Meaning, what are the best ISOs to shoot (video) on the a7iii ? Thanks in advance
Yes. It is for video as well as all modes. It’s always the same range depending on your base ISO of your selected PP. so if you’re shooting video with no PP (PP Off) then the sensitivity ranges are exactly as demonstrated here for the A7III (ISO100 and ISO640). That’s a 2 and 2/3 stops range. So if you’re shooting video and using a PP that has a base ISO of ISO800, the second sensitivity would be ISO5000, the same 2 and 2/3 stops range.
@@erikdurnall9585 I stand corrected, repeated the test righ now. But I had some previous tests with different results, oddly enough. Still have way less "worms" on 3200 compared to 2500, and there's definitely another big increase in quality by choosing ISO 6400 over ISO 5000. Did the latest tests without a lens at all, just camera body plus body cap, perhaps my Capture One activates different automatic enhancements, depending on (no) lens...
It is very interesting point and push me to explore with my camera. From your experience, which camera is your best choice for photography in low light, A7iii, A7iv, or A1? Thanks.
Honestly they’re all basically the same. If I had to pick one it would be the A7IV because it has the best balance of performance, features and resolution. The A7III is the cleanest but it’s also the lowest resolution and the autofocus isn’t nearly as good as the A7IV or A1 so it really depends what is most important to you.
Unfortunately I do not own an A6400 so I cannot do the comparison myself but my understanding is that the A6400 has a similar high conversion gain stage that starts at ISO400
Honestly they’re all excellent. If you want the absolute cleanest image then the A7III is the best, if you want to best resolution with the most details then the A1 is the best, and the A7IV is really mix of both of those, it has better resolution and detail than the A7III and cleaner image output than the A1. The A7IV would be my choice.
Hi Erik, for A1, do we multiply by 4 or 2 1/3 stops increment to go beyond ISO 500? e.g. the next gain is 500X4= iso2000, i.e. other channels propose this formula for videos.
Thanks Eric for an informative and visually believable comparison of these gain amplification break points. Are you relatively confident that the same behavior is exhibited when the sensor is processing in it's sweet spot, i.e. a properly exposed image as opposed to the back of a lens cap? So my interpretation for my A1 is, unless I'm shooting long exposure on a tripod at ISO100 or shooting handheld in very bright light where I can get 100 or 160 that I'm better off setting my min ISO range in AUTO ISO to 500 or 640?
Yes. That is correct. Unless you are shooting in ample light and you can effectively use ISO100-160, you’re better off shooting at ISO500 on the A1. If you’re doing wildlife or anything that typically requires higher shutter speeds, you definitely want to start at ISO500.
PROPOSITION : Should we conclude we should make (available) SIMPLE graphic (same canvas) grids (a smartphone app!) for ANY camera, with just as many fields as iso/asa steps (50 to say 200'000). We coukd then color-marker over those fields that represent the camera's levels where a new treatment kicks in. Then: how much backwards steps it replaces. This we could simply for each camera cross over the settings that overlap and should be ignored. (Best would be to be able to eliminate them in the camera's own algorithms of auto-iso option !!!!!!). Maybe with 3 filters, because these "to eliminate/avoid" ranges, will probably differ not only just in regards to color noise, and dynamic range, but perhaps differ in regards of grain effect, too ? Maybe such an app/ (standardized) table exists already ? Perhaps something for DPreview.
Wow! This is very helpful. Glad someone shared this link on FB. I'm a 7iii user, so shooting with ISO 640 is just the same with ISO 100 regarding on clean image. If my screen will see it as overexposed, I can still shot with ISO 640 and just adjusting the shutter speed right?
@@andyholdsworthmusicphotogr162 there is not another gain stage after the high conversion gain stage but at ISO64000 and beyond there is noise reduction that is applied.
Great info, Erik! Thanks for doing the analysis. However, I’m a little confused since you mentioned A7C also has a second native ISO at 640..is that accurate for shooting RAW images? Also, when shooting video (say, Slog-2) - Would you happen to know what’s the second native ISO stage?
The info I give here is specifically for shooting RAW still images. When using a PP like Slog2 in video, the range will be the same but the numbers will be different so if Slog2 has a base ISO of ISO800 then the high conversion gain stage would start at ISO5000.
@@erikdurnall9585 I see what you’re saying. It seems like it matches up with what Gerald Undone had also alluded to, basically 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop better than A73, around ISO 3200 👍🏼
Yes. It is the same in video except if you are using a Picture Profile the ISO ranges will be relative to the base ISO of the gamma curve that is selected.
@@buffaloray yes, the Slog gammas have a base ISO of ISO800 and the second base ISO is ISO3200. It’s always two full stops. The S-Cinetone gamma has a base ISO of ISO125 so the second base ISO would be ISO500, the same two full stop range.
Erik, thank you so much for this comparison. I understood that you tested the dark channels of several cameras with an 32x (5 stops) amplification. You found the the points where some magic reduction in noise happened, where I guess is a reduction in bandwidth using a digital filter, which is applied (may be ?) to create a second gain stage or whatever magic. That was a real good information you provided for us photographers! Thank you. IMHO the real optical signal is on top of that dark channel noise and is impacted by several digital conversion errors (lin +1 bit uncertainty..) and the number of electrons freed up per photon of the light channel inside the photodiodes. That is the part I would be interest in for noise comparison of the signal channel. Do you have any data about that. Thanks a lot again. KO
Erik, I'd be interested to learn of video high noise gain when you need to bump your ISO very high. I've used the Sony 7SIII and found 12,800 is awesome at night in lower light scenarios. That said what is the high range of the 7IV for working with video in low light, similar to the 7SIII? Thanks!
The A7SIII (and FX3) has a much higher gain conversion point than all of the other cameras. The A7SIII gives you 4 1/3 stops of normal gain before switching to the high conversion gain. In RAW stills, or with PP off the A7SIII has a base ISO of ISO80 which means the high conversion gain stage starts at ISO1600. This also applies to video, and carries over when using picture profiles. For example; when using the Slog3 picture profile, the A7SIII has a base ISO of ISO640 which means the high conversion gain stage starts at ISO12800. It’s easy to figure out the second gain stage for the A7SIII as you can just apply the base ISO by 20. So if you have a PP that has a base ISO of ISO100 100x20=2000 so your second gain stage would start at ISO2000. The A7IV is similar in this way as you can just multiply your base ISO by 4 to figure out where your second gain stage starts. In Slog3 your base ISO is ISO800 so 800x4=3200 which means your second gain stage starts at ISO3200 in Slog3. If you’re using the S-Cinetone profile, the base ISO is ISO125, 125x4=500 so your second gain stage starts at ISO500. The A7III and A1 are not as simple as just doing simple multiplication, but the A7III gives you 2 2/3 stops of ISO range and the A1 gives you 2 1/3 stops of range before switching to the high conversion gain stage. And this apples to all of the picture profiles as well. Hopefully that helps!
@@erikdurnall9585 Shouldn't your multiple by be a constant number rather than having a different number for each camera. How did you come up with the multiply by number?
@@thomastuorto9929 most of the cameras have different high gain conversion points, a few have the same. The Multiplicative factors (20 and 4) of the A7SIII and A7IV respectively, are just a convenient coincidence. The other cameras have conversion points that don’t have that convenience.
Noise? By definition a digital (color) camera has no pixels at the sensor level. The real sensors in the sensor are colorblind and sees the entire humanly visible spectrum. In old black & white (B&W) film terms this makes the sensor "panchromatic" (pan=all, chromatic=colors). And these photosites are analog. We get color because each photosite has its own color filter that limits the visible spectrum to one color band and this makes the photosites (in old B&W terms) monochromatic (mono=one). Your 14-bits (deep) raw file only has monochromatic data elements. The camera has an analog to digital (AD) conversion circuit to convert analog "real" values in to digital integer numbers If you shoot a color reference card and next look in the data elements with the red patch in the subject, then you'll see that the red-filtered photosites have generated high EV numbers, the green photosites (50% of photosites are filtered green) have been scanned and AD converted into dim EV and the blue-filtered photosites may have a zero EV. If you were to display that, you only see noise and it is very ugly. We get pixels from "raw processing" that basically does wild-assed guessing of missing colors. So each of the green and blue photosite values must be turned into an RGB triplet that should say something like [200,0,0] for reasonably bright pure red. But the red photosites are also modified in the processed and in the end have green and blue added into the guess. When we change the "color noise" and "luminance noise" slider in Lightroom Classic (LrC) then we influence how LrC does the raw processing. Statements like "the A7iii is very clean" or "is a very clean sensor" ignore raw processing completely. Attributing artifacts to the sensor keeps Adobe from improving their software. And gives credits to foundries that make integrated circuits (like sensors and processors) based on a client's specifications. Large part of what the naive call color science is in the raw processing, the next big part is in the filter properties of the (Bayer) filter overlay over the sensor, not the sensor. In the end when we get to the photosites, these are almost passive and analog and we get our raw data from scanning the photosites while AD converting into digital numbers. The AD conversion is likely a mathematical function provided by the camera manufacturer. The camera's noise may be a function of its precise Voltage regulation and the precision of its AD and other things, not the sensor in the first place. Then what we see after raw processing is still 95% raw processing. Don't forget that Moiré is just a color noise artifact that we notice because of a repeating pattern in the subject, but that in more randomly textured subjects it still is there (probably more so even). Oh, when marketers of sensor foundries and camera manufacturers advertise "mega pixels" they misled us, except in camera through raw processing JPEG files are generated and these have pixels (because RGB). Yes, there is a noise aspect in very low light. The rest is myth, lie or misleading - ignorant or illiterate parroting. Try raw processing in Topaz Denoise and sample up in their Gigapixel AI. Or process in DxO PhotoLab (5 with the best denoise switched on).
Hi Erik, thanks for this very helpful video and the time you put into doing all the comparisons. I recently purchased the A7IV and also own the A7III. I have been noticing some noise on the A7IV as soon as I was shooting above 160. Started to wonder if I was just seeing things or what but I never seemed to have had this with the A7III. So I did the test and compared both cameras. The noise on the A7IV is noticeably worse at every ISO level. So I guess I was not seeing things. I suppose that means that there is factory issue with my sensor and I should contact Sony about it, would you agree?
Thanks for this video. A long time photographer and something I'd never heard of! Now I have a project, comparing my A7R3, R4 and A1!
You’re welcome! In this video I mistakenly said the A7RIV has the same second gain stage of ISO640 but I meant to say the A9II. The A7RIV has a lower gain conversion point, I think it’s ISO320.
@@erikdurnall9585 I'm glad you corrected that RIV conversion point . I have a RIV and an A1 so that info is great to have. Thanks!
I have the RIV, also. Thanks for the knowledge.
@@erikdurnall9585 Never knew of this concept. This is only my 2nd year in the profession.
Thank you for this info. I had no idea this happens. Will now use iso 80-160 and avoid 200-320 by going straight to 400 on my A74. Can you let’s know if there is a ‘reset’ higher up the range? If so where do we avoid for best results.
Great video. It would be nice if you put your findings in the description of your video.
Use ISO 100-125 or
a7iv 400,
a7iii 640
a1 500,
for the most dynamic range and the least amount of noise in your image.
really bad
Completely wrong conclusion xD
This even works on my A7R2! 640 is cleaner than 250! Thanks for this new awareness!
I really like the way you look at / analyze things !
WOW WOW WOW.. Thank you for clarifying and showing examples. This is going to help me immensely If i am over ISO 160 on my A73. I can just shoot at ISO 640 at that point for the next gain reset.
Yes! Just jump to ISO640.
Thank you, as an owner of A7iv, A1 and A7C, this is very useful information. I may start setting my ISO manually to second gain, rather than leaving on automatic. I photograph wildlife, and often have to heavily crop.
If I ever use Auto ISO, I do set my lower limit to the start of the second gain stage to avoid those noisy, low dynamic range points just before the high conversion gain stage starts.
Make automatic mode start @ second gain point instead of 100 ;)
This was an excellent video, thank you! I am still shooting the A99ii, which uses the same sensor as the A7rii and A7riii, but I never knew about this. I have just tested it myself, with no lens attached (just body cap), and the difference between ISO400 and ISO500 is immense! It also means that the difference between ISO800 and ISO320 is almost nothing - such awesome info to have after so long using this system. Thanks a lot for this, I really do appreciate it!
Glad to hear you found the information useful! Enjoy!
Iso 640 is super clean on the Riii sensor as it is the second gain stage start point. I try to be at 100 or 640 always if it can work for the shot. The sensor gets noisy quick. I personally won't go above 1600 and even then it rubs me wrong sometimes.
Hmm.. something many people don't talk about. Great sharing!
You’re welcome!
Higher resolution doesn’t collect less light, an individual pixel collects less light but there’s more of them, collecting as much light (signal) across the picture. You shouldn’t get much of a difference in noise when viewing the same image a the same size with higher res over similar sensor tech unless you’re cropping etc.
Common mistake TH-camrs do. You can see who does their research and who doesn't.
Yes ! The sensor on the a7sIII its a real 48mp in a quad pixel Bayer binding so the output it’s 12mp! But each sub pixel can be set to different parameters, im this way u archive fantastic dynamic range.
If you look at graph from precise low light test, you can clearly see an a7c 24mp perform better than a7iv with 33mp, across all the range but clearly over 640 iso. Clearly test indicates than you shouldn’t go over 3200 iso in a 61mp when a7c can go easily over 6400 iso and even more. So bigger pixel have an importance, not the number of pixels. I prefer my 24mp a7c over a7iv, a7cii and a7rv or a7cr. I think it is best hybrid at reasonable price.
Great stuff.. I'll have to do this test on all my cameras to see where to keep it for each sweet spot.
Thank you for doing this, it is very helpful. I was wondering why my A7IV showing noise at lower ISO.
It would be very interesting to see the noise comparison at a pixel to pixel crop instead of %full frame. Again, great video!
I like your Rivera in the thumbnail. I was really hoping to see it more prominently in the video
Ha. That thing has been broken forever.
Technically, noise does not come from a lack of signal, and you cannot test SNR without signal calibration. When you plug in two different microphones into an audio interface to test their noise floors, you cannot just turn the gain knob to the max and compare that way, because they might have different sensitivities.
Thanks for doing this. I just had a photoshoot with a large group yesterday and had my A74 at ISO 320 😩and was wondering why it was so grainy! Good to know to just skip to ISO 400. Denoise is helping and a bunch of lightroom work.
THIS is absolutely helpful!!! Never knew that. Thank you so much. Going to skip the ISOs 200 to 500 on my A7III.
Really useful video. I will definitely change the way I set my ISO.
Thanks for this trick! im shooting with apsc and i found how noisy that sensor is. This has been helpful to understand the capabilities of my camera more than ever.
Wow, this was so educational to learn more about the photography tools we all use.
I compared the A7IV and A7III read noise data on the famous site photonstophotos.
Above ISO 500, the A7IV has 50% more read noise that the A7IV in DN units (power).
This is not a big effect, as the noise is small.
But it is easily observable.
This represents a 0,5 shift in log2(DN) that are used on this graph.
I have no explanation for this.
The read noise should not depend on the pixel sizes.
But the reading electronics might be slightly different.
On the other hand, the size of the pixels for A7IV is roughly 28% smaller that for A7III .
(33 Mpixels versus 24 Mpixels)
Therefore, the "shot noise" for the A7IV should be 14% higher than for A7III.
This is because the shot noise is proportional to the square root of the number of photons detected.
This is important because in fair illumination, shot noise always dominates over read noise.
I think I will try to measure this shot noise.
I just realized this should not be too difficult.
But I would need a reasonnably uniform illumination of the sensor.
This uniformity would allow an easy estimation of the standard deviation (stdev) of the signal over all the pixels.
This is a way to measure the noise.
I already measured the read noise for my A7III for 37 different ISO numbers.
Retrieving these 37 "full dark" pictures and calculating the stdev,
I could reproduce exactly the same results as on the site photonstophotos.
By myself. Boy!
The comparison is really almost perfect.
But my first attempt had shown a slight difference at low ISO.
I just discovered that evaluatiog the stdev over all the 24Mpixels was not a good idea.
Because there are slight variation of the average dark signal.
To get this perfect agreement, I simply had to calculate the stdev over a smaller area of 200x200 pixels.
And this is what I will also do with a fair uniform illumination to measure the shot noise.
Thank you so much for this unique test
You are very welcome!
Great info! I have an a7iii, and will be using this data going forward. Thank you again!!!
Good information, seems to confirm charts I've seen on DxO etc in the past, thanks , but I dont understand how you can assess DR on a dark frame.
OMG, I think I'm stunned by this vídeo! This is so important and I had no idea! Thank you so much!!!!!
Excellent job, well done Erik. i had always thought that all Sony cameras had the 2nd gain at iso 640. This new information is vital. Thanks again.
not all at all
Dude this is awesome. Thanks for sharing, this is exactly what I was looking for. I wish I had known the sweet spots for all the years I had the A7iii. I just jumped to the A1 and I will absolutely put this knowledge to use.
Erik, I’d like to hear your thoughts on “iso invariance”, meaning (on the A7iv for example) that all ISOs 400 and above are supposedly the same and only differ by exposure compensation. Meaning a shot that would require ISO 3200 via the camera’s metering would have exactly the same noise if taken at ISO400 and bumped 3 stops in Lightroom. If true, I’m not sure how to think about the practical implications except perhaps that one should always err towards under exposure in dark scenes…
that's crazy! What would be the reason they would even leave the other iso ranges in between?
I find the white dots in the dark areas very distracting on iso 6400 and 300% crop. Try shooting that with lens cap on. Lots of white dots everywhere. Your's the same?
7:22 - this is not really accurate I think, not if you mean "restoring all of the dynamic range". The point of the low gain stage is to have the maximum dynamic range, but that means that low-light areas collect less accurate information. When you enter the high gain stage, you get less noise, but in turn, give up some dynamic range. You can think of this as having buckets for collecting the light. A big bucket can collect more light (high dynamic range), but measuring small amounts of light off of them is not as accurate (more noise). At the high gain stage threshold, you switch over to use small buckets, where you have less noise but also lower dynamic range. But increasing the amplification also reduces the dynamic range, and switching to the high gain circuit reduces the amplification, so you will restore *some* of the dynamic range, but not to the level the lowest ISO on the lower base ISO has. Dan Fox did a great job in explaining how the dual base ISO works in his video "ISO on Sony cameras is often INCREDIBLY misunderstood".
If you meant that switching to the high gain circuitry restores *some* of the dynamic range, then I was going on rambling about something you already knew - but anyway, perhaps this was not clear to all viewers...
You have just blown my mind! I have never heard of Sony's Dual Gain ISO. I have the 3 and 4 versions of these cameras. Honestly, I couldn't see any different on my phone screen. So, I switched over to my monitor and I still couldn't see much difference on my screen. But, I trust your voice and if you are seeing it, I believe you. I'm shocked! I'm better off with 400 than anything after 160!?! That's kind of important. I need to watch this video again. These details will definitely improve my images and I feel like they should be written down somewhere as the Gospel. Can you make a list of where all the range jumps are through the spectrum? Please don't make me do this experiment myself. Thanks for this eye-opening comparison.
You’re very welcome. Make sure you watch it on a better screen, set the playback resolution to 4K and turn the brightness all the way up on your screen. There’s only one gain conversion point for each camera and the A7IV is different from the A7III. The A7IV has much better dynamic range and the noise is relatively the same as the A7III but at a much more useable range in my opinion.
@@erikdurnall9585 Thank you so much. I just watched this again and I'm still blown away. I have researched every aspect of these cameras, but you are the only person I've ever seen talk about this topic. This explains so much about what I'm seeing in my own images. And, you described it so well. Can't wait to see more from you. :D
@@LHazle you’re very welcome! I’m so glad you found it helpful. My purpose for making this video was to try to give a visual example of what is going on, as I find that most people (including myself) find looking at various multi-colored overlayed line graphs to be of very little value. Thanks again!
Knowing the base iso of a camera can be important sometimes, but it's more noticeable when filming. The Fuji xt-4 sits at iso 640, arri Alexa at 800 and so on, and high end models can sometimes have a 'dual' base iso. It's not intuitive either to think that you would get a cleaner image when filming in dim light, if you went up to iso 2000 from say 1600 for some specific cameras.
@@tomastuoma this isn’t about Fujifilm cameras, this is specifically about Sony Full Frame cameras that do have dual base ISO, and it also applies to the relative ISO ranges of the selected Picture Profile gammas in video.
Muchísimas gracias por este video, es increíble los resultados que se pueden obtener cuando uno estudia a fondo su equipo!
great information which I shall use in the future. Thanks.
Great info. Thanks. Will try this on my A7 .
Original A7 and A7II do not have the dual gain ISO unfortunately.
Very helpful test! Thanks man!
A question, is the second gain stage where the "star eater" problem began? Is this still a problem, or are stars in the night sky exempt from the clean-up process? My old Sony a6000 drove me nuts until someone figured out that at a certain point, Sony was doing some sort of image cleanup--even in raw files, that removed many stars from night photos.
thank you so mush. keep doing this type of technical related video
AWESOME VIDEO! I've wondered about this. I am a Nikon shooter; however, I ventured into mirrorless with Sony. I have a 6300, A7 II and an A7 IV. I also have a 1.8 85mm Sony lens. I could see all of the noise. I have a really good noise suppression plug in; however, I lose a lot of detail. I want to use my Sonys more for professional shoots, but there is just too much noise. I'm going to take your advice and try and use ISO 100 and/or 400. Thanks for this video!
I will love to know your findings when you do. Do you mean your Nikon has less noise than the Sony?
Excellent video. Many thanks
Great video, im looking to upgrade A7III to A7RIII or A7IV and this comparison was pretty interesting, one thing that i would wish to see is comparison on higher ISO's, but nevertheless I still think that Sony A7III holds the crown as the best Sony’s low light camera
This is really good info, thanks for showing us this
But whats the difference of shooting with iso100 and iso400 on a A7iv? Is it not always better to shoot 400 to get faster shutter speeds?
Awesome! Short and sweet. I'm trying to find the native ISO(s) for my ZV-E10 but can't. Any ideas sir? Thank you.
Interesting. And helpful. Thank you.
You’re welcome!
I do wildlife photography with the A7R IV, due to rapidly changing conditions and fast speeds I run auto ISO. In good sunlight I just rock 1/1250 shutter and ISO does its own thing, but on the weekend I took some shots in good light and they were noisy as heck, ISO was sticking around 320. But now I think im going to have to change my shooting style, maybe in strong light I just need to set to ISO 640 and then just adjust shutter if need be. Shutter will be quick enough no matter what so its worth a shot
Unfortunately the A7RIV has a lower gain conversion point then what I state in this video. When I say the A7RIV I actually meant to say A9II. The gain conversion point for the A7RIV is actually ISO320 in RAW stills, so if ISO320 is too noisy then a higher ISO value isn’t going to improve your results.
@@erikdurnall9585 Ah ok thanks for letting me know. Strange because I thought ive also heard from another video that ISO 640 is the cleanest for A7R IV, but like I said ISO was all over the place, looking at the photos from the weekend (of a black bird) they were ISO 320, 400, 500. I guess its just the fact of the high dynamic range of the black bird and bright background
@@erikdurnall9585 I have the A1, A7iii, A7Riii and A7Riv. The A7Riv is the noisiest one by a mile. I mean, it starts off noisy at it's base ISO and just goes up from there. Having said that, I still have no problem shooting interiors professionally with the A7Riv to 1000 ISO or so. It's not that the noise isn't there, because it most certainly is, but rather the practical implications of the noise are a lot less problematic than a lot of folks make it out to be, even for paid work.
@@loudandclearmediaagreed the a7riv is terrible. Only good for tripod or macro work . No good for wildlife, low light or action stuff
Thank you so much. Isn’t there another sweet spot in terms of ISO versus noise level up around 6400 in the A7IV? I thought I saw some information on that.
You’re welcome! There isn’t another sweet spot for RAW images, you may be thinking of using picture profiles in video. In the Slog3 Picture Profile the base ISO is ISO800 and the second gain stage is ISO3200 but this is the same as ISO100 and ISO400 in RAW still images, it’s just relative to the selected gamma of the picture profile. I wanted to keep this example as basic as possible so I didn’t go into all of that in this particular video.
Really useful video many thanks. I have just recenty purchased a Sony A7iv and a Sony GM 70-200mm f2.8 OSS II and am starting to shoot astrophotography, trying out deep sky objects, so I'm dealing with very low signals and as a result I need long exposures and maximum magnification and maximum cropping of my images. I'm using ISO 400 on the A7iv as this gives me the maximum dynamic range and minimal noise. However, I didn't know that this is where the second stage amplication kicks in. Good to know. Once again many thanks for your very informative video. I really like your stuff as you delve into the details while making it very understandable.
You are very welcome. ISO400 on the A7IV is amazing. The noise is nearly the same as ISO100 and you get a significant amount of dynamic range back as well. Enjoy!
I needed to understand what's the best iso t range o use on my A7IV because everyone so critical about noise& grainy captures? This helps me alot
Funny was shoot at iso 200. Worried about noise ! Ha. Stuck in crop sensor mindset. Also. But good to here about this on Full frame a7iv. Transitioning. Thank you !
very interested in your content, thanks.
You’re welcome!
Great video! Subscribed 👍🙏😎
Great video, thanks!
You’re welcome!
Would the a9 also come in better at ISO640? Thanks for the info. It’s an eye opener. Great video.
👏👏👏 really impressive thank you 👏👏👏
for A7RIV second gain starts at 320!
Thanks!
Great info!! Thank you!!
Is it some better with firmware update? a7r3
No. It will always be the same.
This is brilliant. Thank you.
Thank you for this video.
You’re welcome!
Excellent video. So we can use iso 400 in sony A7 iv as iso 100? Which is the upper limit for iso in sony A7 iv with acceptable results for video?
Yes. ISO400 is almost identical to ISO100 on the A7IV. For RAW still images you have a lot of range for very clean images well beyond ISO1600. For video with picture profile Off, it is the same ISO ranges. If you are using a Picture Profile like Slog3, which on the A7IV has a base ISO of ISO800, your second gain stage would start at ISO3200 and you would still be seeing very useable footage at ISO12800
Superb video Erik - thanks.
Great info
Thanks for your video
Could you tell me where to find the reliable source of info about dual-gain ISO of each SONY camera please?
Interesting video but you mention the A7rIV second gain is around 640 but other web sites have it lower, 320-360.
Yes. You are correct. I mistakenly said A7RIV when I meant to say A9II. The A7RIV does have a lower second gain stage that starts at ISO320
@@erikdurnall9585 Thank you for the response and the video.
Thx great video. I think I will jump 100 to 400 on my a7.4 in future.
BUT what is the situation with large compressed raw which I shoot and probably many others please
I’m over here trying to squint to see the noise lmao those are some clean sensors !
When I use sony a7IV in long exposure I have colours banding . I'm very disappointed about sony a7IV.
How about In the older A7 II that are still In stores, I have It, I'm guessing that It doesn't have this sweet spot In the higher ISO at all. I will have to try It out?
Why would thay do that? Also no information about it.. 1..thabk you. 2. I feel frasutraed needed to close my aperture and use lower iso instead knowing i can use higher iso with same results while keeping more thing i needed in focus
Great and informative video!
Does this apply to video on the a7iik as well? Meaning, what are the best ISOs to shoot (video) on the a7iii ?
Thanks in advance
Yes. It is for video as well as all modes. It’s always the same range depending on your base ISO of your selected PP. so if you’re shooting video with no PP (PP Off) then the sensitivity ranges are exactly as demonstrated here for the A7III (ISO100 and ISO640). That’s a 2 and 2/3 stops range. So if you’re shooting video and using a PP that has a base ISO of ISO800, the second sensitivity would be ISO5000, the same 2 and 2/3 stops range.
Thank you for enlighting us. Really good to know!. Stupid question - is there a "third" gain stage?
There is not a third gain stage unfortunately.
Brilliant !!! Thank you for this. Have you performed the same test for the a7Riii maybe?
Great video! Do you know the dual gain ISO for the A7siii?
pitty you stopped at ISO 1600... A7iv has kind a secondary ISO-quality kicking in at ISO 3200, waaaay better than with ISO 1600
The A7IV second base ISO starts at ISO400 as demonstrated in this video, not ISO3200
@@erikdurnall9585 I stand corrected, repeated the test righ now. But I had some previous tests with different results, oddly enough. Still have way less "worms" on 3200 compared to 2500, and there's definitely another big increase in quality by choosing ISO 6400 over ISO 5000. Did the latest tests without a lens at all, just camera body plus body cap, perhaps my Capture One activates different automatic enhancements, depending on (no) lens...
It is very interesting point and push me to explore with my camera. From your experience, which camera is your best choice for photography in low light, A7iii, A7iv, or A1? Thanks.
Honestly they’re all basically the same. If I had to pick one it would be the A7IV because it has the best balance of performance, features and resolution. The A7III is the cleanest but it’s also the lowest resolution and the autofocus isn’t nearly as good as the A7IV or A1 so it really depends what is most important to you.
@@erikdurnall9585 Thanks. Looking forward to watching your new coming up video on TH-cam.
SLOG-3 native iso 800 and 3200 - what ?
Who thought... Great info
Have you done the same comparison with the a6400 vs a7III. If so what have you found. Thanks. Extremely interesting.
Unfortunately I do not own an A6400 so I cannot do the comparison myself but my understanding is that the A6400 has a similar high conversion gain stage that starts at ISO400
@@erikdurnall9585 thanks very much. I recall Tony Northrup did a video a while back on the same subject. Yours is better I think.
Which of these cameras works best for astro photography?
Honestly they’re all excellent. If you want the absolute cleanest image then the A7III is the best, if you want to best resolution with the most details then the A1 is the best, and the A7IV is really mix of both of those, it has better resolution and detail than the A7III and cleaner image output than the A1. The A7IV would be my choice.
So I have a A7riii and a A9 do they have this too? Or no because older models? Thanks for the info!
Yes. The A7RIII and A9 are the same as the A7III which I demonstrate in this video.
@@erikdurnall9585 thank you!!
I made the test and unfortunately I didn't notice an improvement @640ISO in my a7iii... I was so sad...
Hi Erik, for A1, do we multiply by 4 or 2 1/3 stops increment to go beyond ISO 500? e.g. the next gain is 500X4= iso2000, i.e. other channels propose this formula for videos.
Thanks Eric for an informative and visually believable comparison of these gain amplification break points. Are you relatively confident that the same behavior is exhibited when the sensor is processing in it's sweet spot, i.e. a properly exposed image as opposed to the back of a lens cap? So my interpretation for my A1 is, unless I'm shooting long exposure on a tripod at ISO100 or shooting handheld in very bright light where I can get 100 or 160 that I'm better off setting my min ISO range in AUTO ISO to 500 or 640?
Yes. That is correct. Unless you are shooting in ample light and you can effectively use ISO100-160, you’re better off shooting at ISO500 on the A1. If you’re doing wildlife or anything that typically requires higher shutter speeds, you definitely want to start at ISO500.
@@erikdurnall9585 Thanks brother , that's something I never would have figured out on my own.
PROPOSITION :
Should we conclude we should make (available) SIMPLE graphic (same canvas) grids (a smartphone app!) for ANY camera, with just as many fields as iso/asa steps (50 to say 200'000). We coukd then color-marker over those fields that represent the camera's levels where a new treatment kicks in. Then: how much backwards steps it replaces. This we could simply for each camera cross over the settings that overlap and should be ignored. (Best would be to be able to eliminate them in the camera's own algorithms of auto-iso option !!!!!!).
Maybe with 3 filters, because these "to eliminate/avoid" ranges, will probably differ not only just in regards to color noise, and dynamic range, but perhaps differ in regards of grain effect, too ?
Maybe such an app/ (standardized) table exists already ?
Perhaps something for DPreview.
Wow! This is very helpful. Glad someone shared this link on FB.
I'm a 7iii user, so shooting with ISO 640 is just the same with ISO 100 regarding on clean image. If my screen will see it as overexposed, I can still shot with ISO 640 and just adjusting the shutter speed right?
yes or close down the f stop
Brilliant info, really useful Erik. Is there a second gain stage for a A73 ?
Cheers,
Andy.
Thanks! The A7III high conversion gain stage starts at ISO640 in RAW stills with no PP.
@@erikdurnall9585 Thanks for your reply. I was wondering if there is another stage after 640 ?
@@andyholdsworthmusicphotogr162 there is not another gain stage after the high conversion gain stage but at ISO64000 and beyond there is noise reduction that is applied.
Great info, Erik! Thanks for doing the analysis. However, I’m a little confused since you mentioned A7C also has a second native ISO at 640..is that accurate for shooting RAW images? Also, when shooting video (say, Slog-2) - Would you happen to know what’s the second native ISO stage?
The info I give here is specifically for shooting RAW still images. When using a PP like Slog2 in video, the range will be the same but the numbers will be different so if Slog2 has a base ISO of ISO800 then the high conversion gain stage would start at ISO5000.
@@erikdurnall9585 I see what you’re saying. It seems like it matches up with what Gerald Undone had also alluded to, basically 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop better than A73, around ISO 3200 👍🏼
Great video, So do these ISO levels work the same for the video side of this camera?
Yes. It is the same in video except if you are using a Picture Profile the ISO ranges will be relative to the base ISO of the gamma curve that is selected.
@@erikdurnall9585 i thought i read somewhere that there was in video mode a duel base ISO with the second base ISO being around 3200 on the a7iv
@@buffaloray yes, the Slog gammas have a base ISO of ISO800 and the second base ISO is ISO3200. It’s always two full stops. The S-Cinetone gamma has a base ISO of ISO125 so the second base ISO would be ISO500, the same two full stop range.
Thanks for this, also what eye cup is that?
It is the KiWifotos eyecup for A7SIII/A1 it also fits the A7IV.
Erik, thank you so much for this comparison.
I understood that you tested the dark channels of several cameras with an 32x (5 stops) amplification.
You found the the points where some magic reduction in noise happened, where I guess is a reduction in bandwidth using a digital filter, which is applied (may be ?) to create a second gain stage or whatever magic.
That was a real good information you provided for us photographers!
Thank you.
IMHO the real optical signal is on top of that dark channel noise and is impacted by several digital conversion errors (lin +1 bit uncertainty..) and the number of electrons freed up per photon of the light channel inside the photodiodes. That is the part I would be interest in for noise comparison of the signal channel. Do you have any data about that.
Thanks a lot again.
KO
do you know the 2nd clean iso for a7siii?
The A7SIII in RAW stills with picture profile off has a base ISO80 and the second gain stage starts at ISO1600
@@erikdurnall9585 you are the man! thanks for the tip! downloading your video to my ty premium to give you those extra seo points!
Erik, I'd be interested to learn of video high noise gain when you need to bump your ISO very high. I've used the Sony 7SIII and found 12,800 is awesome at night in lower light scenarios. That said what is the high range of the 7IV for working with video in low light, similar to the 7SIII? Thanks!
The A7SIII (and FX3) has a much higher gain conversion point than all of the other cameras. The A7SIII gives you 4 1/3 stops of normal gain before switching to the high conversion gain. In RAW stills, or with PP off the A7SIII has a base ISO of ISO80 which means the high conversion gain stage starts at ISO1600. This also applies to video, and carries over when using picture profiles. For example; when using the Slog3 picture profile, the A7SIII has a base ISO of ISO640 which means the high conversion gain stage starts at ISO12800. It’s easy to figure out the second gain stage for the A7SIII as you can just apply the base ISO by 20. So if you have a PP that has a base ISO of ISO100 100x20=2000 so your second gain stage would start at ISO2000. The A7IV is similar in this way as you can just multiply your base ISO by 4 to figure out where your second gain stage starts. In Slog3 your base ISO is ISO800 so 800x4=3200 which means your second gain stage starts at ISO3200 in Slog3. If you’re using the S-Cinetone profile, the base ISO is ISO125, 125x4=500 so your second gain stage starts at ISO500. The A7III and A1 are not as simple as just doing simple multiplication, but the A7III gives you 2 2/3 stops of ISO range and the A1 gives you 2 1/3 stops of range before switching to the high conversion gain stage. And this apples to all of the picture profiles as well. Hopefully that helps!
@@erikdurnall9585 Shouldn't your multiple by be a constant number rather than having a different number for each camera. How did you come up with the multiply by number?
@@thomastuorto9929 most of the cameras have different high gain conversion points, a few have the same. The Multiplicative factors (20 and 4) of the A7SIII and A7IV respectively, are just a convenient coincidence. The other cameras have conversion points that don’t have that convenience.
Noise? By definition a digital (color) camera has no pixels at the sensor level. The real sensors in the sensor are colorblind and sees the entire humanly visible spectrum. In old black & white (B&W) film terms this makes the sensor "panchromatic" (pan=all, chromatic=colors). And these photosites are analog. We get color because each photosite has its own color filter that limits the visible spectrum to one color band and this makes the photosites (in old B&W terms) monochromatic (mono=one). Your 14-bits (deep) raw file only has monochromatic data elements. The camera has an analog to digital (AD) conversion circuit to convert analog "real" values in to digital integer numbers
If you shoot a color reference card and next look in the data elements with the red patch in the subject, then you'll see that the red-filtered photosites have generated high EV numbers, the green photosites (50% of photosites are filtered green) have been scanned and AD converted into dim EV and the blue-filtered photosites may have a zero EV.
If you were to display that, you only see noise and it is very ugly.
We get pixels from "raw processing" that basically does wild-assed guessing of missing colors. So each of the green and blue photosite values must be turned into an RGB triplet that should say something like [200,0,0] for reasonably bright pure red. But the red photosites are also modified in the processed and in the end have green and blue added into the guess.
When we change the "color noise" and "luminance noise" slider in Lightroom Classic (LrC) then we influence how LrC does the raw processing.
Statements like "the A7iii is very clean" or "is a very clean sensor" ignore raw processing completely. Attributing artifacts to the sensor keeps Adobe from improving their software. And gives credits to foundries that make integrated circuits (like sensors and processors) based on a client's specifications.
Large part of what the naive call color science is in the raw processing, the next big part is in the filter properties of the (Bayer) filter overlay over the sensor, not the sensor. In the end when we get to the photosites, these are almost passive and analog and we get our raw data from scanning the photosites while AD converting into digital numbers. The AD conversion is likely a mathematical function provided by the camera manufacturer.
The camera's noise may be a function of its precise Voltage regulation and the precision of its AD and other things, not the sensor in the first place.
Then what we see after raw processing is still 95% raw processing. Don't forget that Moiré is just a color noise artifact that we notice because of a repeating pattern in the subject, but that in more randomly textured subjects it still is there (probably more so even).
Oh, when marketers of sensor foundries and camera manufacturers advertise "mega pixels" they misled us, except in camera through raw processing JPEG files are generated and these have pixels (because RGB).
Yes, there is a noise aspect in very low light. The rest is myth, lie or misleading - ignorant or illiterate parroting.
Try raw processing in Topaz Denoise and sample up in their Gigapixel AI. Or process in DxO PhotoLab (5 with the best denoise switched on).
Good information. Consider using a teleprompter instead of notes to increase the production value. Best wishes…
Thanks for the recommendation.
@@erikdurnall9585 I thought it was pretty good the way it was!
Whatever be the noise, my A 7 iii delivers smooth images after i got Topaz AI 👌🏻😍
Hi Erik, thanks for this very helpful video and the time you put into doing all the comparisons. I recently purchased the A7IV and also own the A7III. I have been noticing some noise on the A7IV as soon as I was shooting above 160. Started to wonder if I was just seeing things or what but I never seemed to have had this with the A7III. So I did the test and compared both cameras. The noise on the A7IV is noticeably worse at every ISO level. So I guess I was not seeing things. I suppose that means that there is factory issue with my sensor and I should contact Sony about it, would you agree?
No man... A73 is much better because of the low mpx imo. Is normal to be better even if the sensor is old!
Sorry to come in like this... But I have the same problem, I would like to know if you were able to solve it?
Me on my phone: "they all look the same"
yup
Do you happen to know the 2nd Iso point for the original A7?
My bad - I see you've already answered that!