Sony underrates their sensors?

Brownie

Legendary Member
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Followers
21
Following
1
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
4,895
Likes Received
3,778
Name
Tim
Country
United States
City/State
SE Michigan
I was watching a video comparing the A1 to a Z9 and the narrator made a comment that Sony underrates their sensors by 1/2 - 2/3 of a stop. They do this so you have less chance of blowing out the top end while still allowing enough lattitude to recover the shadows. Evidently some manufacturers go the opposite way to give better low-end detail, but the top end gets blown.

What this means is when you're shooting ISO 200, you're really shooting 130-150. Doesn't sound too unreasonable until you start getting farther up the ISO settings and realize ISO 8000 is really ISO 6000 if it's a 1/2 stop, closer to 5300 if it's 2/3.

At first this seemed a bit outlandish, but then some real-world experience started to creep into my mind. @spudhead says he overexposes his shots quite a bit. Another member started threads about not being able to get the exposure correct. And me, I noted very early on in my Sony ownership that it seems I need to add a 1/2 stop +/- to my images when processing pretty regularly, something I never had to do with other brands. I've also thought from time to time that my 200-600 @ 5.6-6.3 needs more light than my old Panasonic 100-400 5.6-6.3, when I'd expect them to be identical. Is it the underrated sensor?

I have searched the internet using every search term I can think of but cannot find another reference to this anywhere. Does anyone have something that could substantiate this?
 
I was watching a video comparing the A1 to a Z9 and the narrator made a comment that Sony underrates their sensors by 1/2 - 2/3 of a stop. They do this so you have less chance of blowing out the top end while still allowing enough lattitude to recover the shadows. Evidently some manufacturers go the opposite way to give better low-end detail, but the top end gets blown.

What this means is when you're shooting ISO 200, you're really shooting 130-150. Doesn't sound too unreasonable until you start getting farther up the ISO settings and realize ISO 8000 is really ISO 6000 if it's a 1/2 stop, closer to 5300 if it's 2/3.

At first this seemed a bit outlandish, but then some real-world experience started to creep into my mind. @spudhead says he overexposes his shots quite a bit. Another member started threads about not being able to get the exposure correct. And me, I noted very early on in my Sony ownership that it seems I need to add a 1/2 stop +/- to my images when processing pretty regularly, something I never had to do with other brands. I've also thought from time to time that my 200-600 @ 5.6-6.3 needs more light than my old Panasonic 100-400 5.6-6.3, when I'd expect them to be identical. Is it the underrated sensor?

I have searched the internet using every search term I can think of but cannot find another reference to this anywhere. Does anyone have something that could substantiate this?
Tim for sure I over expose a fair bit and I think quite a few of the more experienced Sony shooters on here do if they were to share the little secrets they have learned
 
For infrared converted Sony cameras, I have to over expose 2/3 stop and sometimes 1 full stop.
 
Ever since I got the A7RiV I sussed that over exposing at high ISO is infinitely better than under, I usually add 0.7 at 10k ISO, sometimes a stop, so this kind of backs up the thoughts.
 
So far, 100% overexpose response. :unsure:
 
On some bodies I've set the exposure compensation on +1/3 almost permanently. I like the slight boost, rather than 2/3 or more, because I'd rather avoid blown highlights. But Sony images appear to be fairly resilient to a lift in post.
 
FYI, I've asked this same question on a different forum, same thing. 100% over expose.
 
FYI, I've asked this same question on a different forum, same thing. 100% over expose.
Tim the over exposure most speak of in the replies is mild in my opinion
 
Tim the over exposure most speak of in the replies is mild in my opinion
Yes. You overexpose a lot more than most. As I said in the OP, I notice maybe a 1/2 stop +/- when processing, so EC of 2/3 would be plenty for me. That also agrees with the statement this guy made about how much Sony underrates their sensors.
 
As a follow up, I overexposed 2/3 stop at the track last weekend, and had excellent results. I think the statement is absolutely correct, Sony underrates their sensors.
 
As a follow up, I overexposed 2/3 stop at the track last weekend, and had excellent results. I think the statement is absolutely correct, Sony underrates their sensors.
Really weird isn't it, but at least we know.
 
Some Sony cameras have an option to set a default exposure compensation if you really think it always overexposes (or underexposes). Once set it will always apply to all your pictures.

Go find the Exposure Standard Adjustment. In my A7C it's the third option of Settings 1 tab, page 9.

I haven't set it yet as it seems too definitive but it's true that I usually have to use the -EC dial...
 
Some Sony cameras have an option to set a default exposure compensation if you really think it always overexposes (or underexposes). Once set it will always apply to all your pictures.

Go find the Exposure Standard Adjustment. In my A7C it's the third option of Settings 1 tab, page 9.

I haven't set it yet as it seems too definitive but it's true that I usually have to use the -EC dial...
Someone on another site suggested that they have a lockable Ec dial so you can dial in the appropriate factor (+1/3 or +2/3, typically), then lock it in :cool:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top