Camera
Analysis: New Sony a1 sensor offers class-leading dynamic range, along with high-speed and high-resolution
| Photo by Dan Bracaglia |
The Sony Alpha 1 introduces the next generation of full-frame stacked CMOS from Sony Semiconductor. It’s the second chip of its type following the one in the a9, and with it comes improved readout speeds on the order of 5ms or faster, enabling flash sync speeds of 1/200s with electronic shutter as well as decreased rolling shutter and risk of banding under artificial light, and focus and exposure calculations at 120 times per second. This silent electronic shutter underpins the camera’s 20 and 30 frames-per-second (fps) burst modes.
With our in-depth review ongoing, we wanted to take a look at whether these sensor capabilities came at the cost of other imaging attributes of the a1’s sensor; particularly, its dynamic range capabilities.
Class-leading dynamic range
With the launch of the a9, we found a slightly unexpected decrease in dynamic range. We say ‘unexpected’ because we’ve grown accustomed to cameras using Sony Semiconductor’s sensors offering high dynamic range (i.e. low noise) and had gotten used to exploiting this in our photography.
It appeared the a9 traded off dynamic range – by dropping readout bit-depth we surmised – to achieve high read speeds (nearly 1/160s according to Jim Kasson). While the a9 II improved matters significantly, noise levels in deep shadows were never as low as those of Sony Semiconductor’s benchmark sensors. Our dynamic range tests showed that neither the a9 nor the a9 II achieved the noise-free shadows (i.e. high dynamic range) of Sony’s own a7 III, while Canon’s 1D X III only competed with noise reduction that significantly decreases detail.1
It seemed that you could only have high dynamic range and modest readout / shooting speeds, or high-speed sensors with accompanying noise penalties. Put more simply, you apparently couldn’t have your cake and eat it too. With the a1, you can.
The sensor in the a1 proves that fast scan rates and high dynamic range need not be mutually exclusive. Compared to the chip in the a9 II, it offers a nearly 1 EV improvement in base ISO dynamic range2 while still offering at least a 20% increase in readout speed based on spec alone, and a 1.44x increase in linear resolution.
 |
| The a1 measures 13.71 EV base ISO dynamic range in all electronic shutter modes (including 20 and 30 fps continuous modes), compared to 12.96 EV for the a9 II in all its electronic shutter modes. This 0.75 EV improvement places the a1 firmly ahead of all professional sports-oriented cameras in low ISO dynamic range. High ISO dynamic range remains competitive, though lags slightly at very high ISOs due likely to a smaller pixel pitch and 1/3 EV lower dual gain step (ISO 500 vs. 640) compared to the a9 II.3
Note that all dynamic range comparisons are normalized to a common output or viewing size, for fair comparisons, removing disadvantages due simply to the presence of more pixels in higher resolution sensors. |
The 0.75 EV improvement in e-shutter base ISO dynamic range (0.7 EV in mechanical shutter) over the previous generation of stacked CMOS places the a1 firmly ahead of not only Sony’s own prior attempts at pro-oriented cameras in this regard, but all other professional sports-oriented cameras as well:
Base ISO dynamic range of pro-oriented sports cameras
| Mechanical | Electronic | |
|---|---|---|
| Sony a1 | 13.9 EV | 13.7 EV |
| Sony a9 II | 13.2 EV | 13.0 EV |
| Sony a9 | 12.6 EV | 12.6 EV |
| Canon 1D X III | 13.6 EV* | 11.6 EV |
| Nikon D5 | 11.4 EV |
* Canon 1D X III achieves this high dynamic range figure after noise reduction.
The a1 has 2.5 EV higher base ISO dynamic range than Nikon’s closest offering, while Canon’s 1D X III shows similar noise levels in base ISO Raws, but with considerably less detail due to the noise reduction that enables its low noise levels. Amongst its pro-oriented peers, the a1 sports class-leading dynamic range.
Not just good for a sports camera
The Sony Alpha 1’s dynamic range isn’t just good for a sports camera, though. It’s nearly a match for the very best full-frame cameras we’ve tested, despite the fast sensor scan rates that enable so many of its headline-grabbing capabilities. Have a look below at the a1’s dynamic range performance against the Sony a7R Mark IV (green), one of our current benchmarks for full-frame performance.
 |
| The base ISO dynamic range of the Sony a1 falls only 0.1 EV behind that of the class-leading Sony a7R IV in mechanical shutter mode, making it nearly class-leading in dynamic range compared to full-frame cameras. There is only at most a 0.2 EV dynamic range cost to e-shutter mode, which disappears at higher ISOs as amplification overcomes any extra read noise that accompanies the electronic shutter mode. High ISO dynamic range, which tends to vary with pixel size, the dual gain step, and upstream read noise, exceeds the a7R IV and compares favorably against other high-res full-frame cameras, albeit slightly less so against its lower-resolution pro- and sports-oriented peers. |
The a1’s dynamic range stacks up well alongside its class-leading high-resolution full-frame peers: the Sony a7R IV (and for that matter, Nikon’s excellent Z7 II), being only a nearly inconsequential 0.1 EV behind either.4 But what’s particularly impressive is just how little of a dynamic range cost – just 0.2 EV – there is to the e-shutter mode that underpins the camera’s 20 and 30 fps burst modes. Until now we’ve typically seen a noise cost associated with fast readout speeds; the a1’s sensor retains nearly the same dynamic range in both of its shutter modes despite a readout rate that’s within 1ms of a traditional mechanical shutter.
This means that the a1 can offer dynamic range competitive with the best landscape cameras even when using the fast readout modes that allow sports camera performance. A table below summarizes the base ISO dynamic range numbers for the cameras, alongside the a7 Mark III referred to earlier:
| D-Range (pixel level) | D-Range (24 MP) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sony a1 Mechanical | 13.4 EV | 13.9 EV |
| Sony a1 Electronic | 13.2 EV | 13.7 EV |
| Sony a7R IV Mechanical | 13.4 EV | 14 EV |
| Sony a7 III Mechanical | 13.8 EV | 13.8 EV |
Furthermore, although 30 fps bursts require you switch to lossy compressed Raw, we measured no additional dynamic range cost (there may still be potentially distracting local compression artifacts around high contrast edges of deep shadows in low ISO files).
It seems that with the launch of the sensor in the a1, Sony shows us there needn’t be a dramatic tradeoff between speed and image quality, in terms of either dynamic range or resolution.
All-round performance
So far we’ve primarily looked at low ISO settings, since these are the ones that you’d use if you were concerned about dynamic range. However, as light levels drop, the a1 remains competitive, especially when you consider its high resolution. Noise levels in midtones are only slightly behind class leaders Nikon D5 and Canon 1D X III. We take the position that signal:noise ratio of midtones is more relevant at high ISO than dynamic range, but it’s worth noting that the a1 fares well in both regards, exceeding the dynamic range of the a9 II at intermediate ISOs, but eventually falling slightly behind the a9 II and other lower resolution chips at the highest ISOs. Pay close attention to the noise levels of pushed shadows of the high ISO crops in the links above.
These additional visual results compared to the a7R IV, a9 II and a7 III confirm a clear pattern: there’s a small high ISO dynamic range cost to be paid for high resolution sensors due to the increased cumulative read noise from the extra pixels which, with the greater amplification at the highest ISOs, becomes more noticeable as visible noise in deep shadows. It also seems that fast readout still does come at the cost of at least some, albeit now small, noise cost.5 That considered, the a1 does compare favorably in high ISO dynamic range next to its high-resolution peers.
A visual comparison
While a single number isn’t meant to sum up image quality by any means, when comparing across the same sensor format, base ISO dynamic range numbers give you a reasonable idea of how noise-free shadows of Raw files are (and for the sensor geeks amongst us, how little downstream read noise the sensor and camera electronics add to the signal). The cleaner those darker tones are, the more readily you can brighten them for incorporation (or tone-mapping) into your final output. And, indeed, our measured numbers align very well with the visual results our tests, below.
Take a look at the dynamic range capabilities of these cameras – and our previously mentioned high-resolution benchmarks – by examining shadow noise in our ISO invariance widget below. Our ISO invariance test looks at how much electronic noise a camera’s sensor and electronics add to an image, which provides a rough idea of the noise penalty you can expect if you were to reduce the ISO setting to protect highlights at the time of exposure – while still using the shutter speed and aperture of a high ISO exposure – compared to using the high ISO setting in-camera to obtain a ‘proper’ exposure (learn about ISO-invariance here).
After a +6 EV push, the a1 shows similar noise levels in shadows to the a7R IV, as our graphs and numbers predict. Electronic shutter, the mode required for the camera’s highest burst rates, shows only the tiniest increase in noise in the darkest black tones (to the right of the newspaper crop above). There’s significantly less noise and more detail compared to the a9 II, and especially in comparison to Sony’s first attempt at full-frame stacked CMOS, the a9.
Compared to ‘pro’ offerings from Canon and Nikon, the a1 shows significantly more detail and less noise, with the 1D X III competing on noise levels due only to noise reduction that reduces detail. Switch the Canon to its e-shutter mode and the difference in dynamic range is rather stark (we use the R6 as a proxy here as the sensor measurements are identical)
Though measured base ISO dynamic range falls within 0.1 EV of Nikon’s Z7 II, engineering dynamic range does not account for the increased total light the Z7 II can tolerate at its lower base ISO of 64 (compared to 100 for the a1 and a7R IV), which does give the Nikon a leg up in shadow noise, provided the extra exposure is possible.
Conclusion
The sensor in the Sony a1 displays a marked improvement over the first-generation full-frame stacked CMOS seen in the a9 and a9 II, with increases in resolution, readout speed and dynamic range. Up until now it had seemed as though fast sensor readout and high dynamic range were mutually exclusive. The a1 has the fastest sensor scan rate of any camera we’ve measured, to our knowledge only roughly 1ms or ~25% slower than a traditional mechanical shutter
And yet despite the speedy readout and shooting rates, the a1’s base ISO dynamic range is class-leading compared its sport-oriented peers, and lies within our measurement error of its class-leading high-resolution full-frame peers. Meanwhile, high ISO dynamic range remains competitive, surpassing that of many of its high-resolution peers and falling only slightly behind lower resolution cameras that have less cumulative read noise due to fewer pixels.
That means you won’t have to worry about trading off any image quality for the capabilities the a1 bring that hinge upon its fast readout. High contrast scenes such as the one above, and more challenging ones, can be handled with ease if you expose to retain highlights and tone-map underexposed tones to be visible in post-processing. And the dual gain design of the sensor ensures low noise levels as light levels drop. The Alpha 1 should offer a great deal of flexibility regardless of your shooting scenario.
Addendum: What about lossy and lossless compression?
We’ve written much about Sony’s lossy compression, mostly about how it should be modified to not include local compression artifacts, in addition to being offered alongside lossless compression as it is for most other brands. The destructive lossy compression was the only form of compression for Raw files offered up until now (remember when it was the only Raw option?), but that’s changed with the a1.
With the a1, you now have three options for Raws: uncompressed, lossless and lossy compressed.
Uncompressed and lossless compressed files retain the largest dynamic range, while lossy Raw files pay a slight 0.11 EV dynamic range cost. 0.11 EV is within our margin of error, so you’re more likely to notice the local compression artifacts around high contrast edges of deep shadows than you are to notice this slight drop in measured dynamic range. Furthermore, if you’re switching to lossy compressed Raw to achieve the camera’s 30 fps burst rate, there’s already a 0.2 EV drop in dynamic range due to the use of a fully electronic shutter, which makes this 0.11 EV cost typically irrelevant.
Leave a Reply
| Image: Apple |
28 Years Later, a sequel to the 2002 zombie movie 28 Days Later, was reportedly shot using an iPhone 15 Pro Max. Wired did some investigating after seeing an on-set image shot by a paparazzo, and says that “the use of Apple smartphones as the principal camera system on 28 Years Later was subsequently confirmed to Wired by several people connected with the movie.” This news comes shortly after Apple spent a considerable amount of time touting the iPhone’s capabilities as a video camera during its iPhone 16 Pro announcement event.
Looking at the on-set image posted by Just Jared, you’d be forgiven for not spotting immediately spotting the phone. Like with many ‘Shot on iPhone’ productions, it’s buried beneath tons of gear, including what appears to be an external lens, monitor, matte box, and more.
 |
|
The rig on the right of the image reportedly contains an iPhone.
Image: Just Jared |
The movie’s director, Danny Boyle, and cinematographer, Anthony Dod Mantle, are no strangers to using cutting-edge and sometimes unusual cameras to make their movies. In 2009, Dod Mantle’s work on Slumdog Millionaire – also directed by Boyle – earned him the first Oscar for Best Cinematography awarded to a movie shot mainly using digital cameras instead of film. The pair also worked together on 127 Hours, a movie partially shot on Canon DSLRs.
Perhaps the most relevant precedent is 28 Days Later itself. Boyle and Dod Mantle shot much of it using the Canon XL1, a CCD camcorder that recorded to DV tapes. In the 2012 documentary Side By Side, Boyle talks about how using several of the relatively inexpensive cameras helped them shoot the iconic scene where Cillian Murphy walks through an empty and trashed London despite the production not having enough money to shut down the city.
Image quality-wise, the iPhone 15 Pro – which can shoot Log footage at 60FPS in ProRes – is vastly superior to the XL1. Talking about shooting 28 Days Later in Side By Side, Boyle reminisced, saying, “if you were in a wide shot with a small figure in it, they were just two or three pixels. I mean there was nothing there, there was just the color.”
Still, shooting 28 Years Later with iPhones is an interesting choice. The original movie had an estimated budget of around $8 million – that wasn’t a lot of money to shoot a film with in 2002, so it’s easy to see why they didn’t want to spend a ton on camera gear. 28 Years, meanwhile, has a reported budget of around $75 million.
While that’s relatively modest by today’s standards, entry-level cinema cameras have gotten so inexpensive that the crew almost certainly could’ve afforded them if they’d wanted to use them. For reference, the 2023 sci-fi film The Creator had an estimated budget of around $80 million and was famously shot using a Sony FX3. Alex Garland, the writer of 28 Days Later and 28 Years Later, also recently shot a $50 million movie that made use of the DJI 4D-6K.
We likely won’t know why this decision was made until the crew publicly acknowledges the iPhone’s role in filming, but when they do, they’ll likely talk about it extensively. The decision to shoot on smartphones has historically been a big focus in the PR cycle leading up to the release of films shot on them, such as 2015’s Tangerine or 2018’s Unsane.
According to Wired, the iPhone wasn’t the only camera used to shoot 28 Years Later: unspecified action cameras were also used to film scenes involving farm animals. The outlet says Apple was informed the production would be using iPhones and that the company “provided technical assistance to the moviemakers.”
28 Years Later is set to release in June 2025 and will reportedly be the first of three new movies in the franchise. Its sequel is currently being called 28 Years Later Part II: The Bone Temple, though there’s currently no information on what it’s being shot with.
| Images: llano, OWC, ProMaster |
Things have been a bit calmer around the DPReview offices this week, but we’ve still found a range of new accessories that have hit the market. Before we get to those, though, let’s check out the deal of the week:
Old but Gold
 |
If you were hoping that the arrival of the Canon EOS R5 Mark II would make it easier to get the original EOS R5, you’re in luck. The camera, which received a Gold award when we reviewed it in 2020, is currently $500 off the list price. You won’t be getting the latest and greatest features the Mark II has, such as a stacked sensor for faster shooting, 8K/60 video, or Eye Control AF, but you’ll also be saving $1,400.
 |
Another Gold winner from Canon, the EOS R6 Mark II, is also $500 off its MSRP. It’s an all-around solid enthusiast-tier full frame camera, and a great deal at $2,000 body-only.
Super fast storage
 |
|
The Envoy Ultra is for people who need to move a lot of data in a little time.
Image: OWC |
OWC has announced the Envoy Ultra, which it says is the ‘first and fastest Thunderbolt 5’ external SSD. According to the company, the drive, which comes in 2TB and 4TB versions, can operate at a blistering 6000MB per second.
Of course, finding a computer that can take advantage of that speed may be difficult – you could count the laptops equipped with Thunderbolt 5 on one hand – but if you plug it into a Thunderbolt 4 computer, you can be sure you’re maxing out the port.
The one quirk is that the drive uses a built-in cable rather than a detachable one. On one hand, that means you’ll have the frustrating experience of showing up with your SSD but realizing you left the cable to connect it at home. But on the other, it is a bit of a weak point on a drive advertised as ‘waterproof, dustproof, and crushproof.’ If the cable breaks, you won’t be able to simply replace it.
The Envoy Ultra is available for pre-order on OWC’s website, and the company says it’ll ship in ‘late October.’ The 2TB model is $399.99, and the 4TB one is $599.99.
On-the-go power
 |
|
Put your batteries in this battery.
Image: llano |
This week, FStoppers wrote about an accessory that’s not exactly new but could be useful: a battery bank with two slots for Canon LP-E6NH batteries.
The company that makes the gadget, llano, says it can recharge two batteries in two hours. It also includes two USB-C ports that can either be used to charge the bank itself or to charge other devices, such as your phone.
At $109, it’s certainly not the cheapest battery bank out there, and it is worth noting that many cameras these days can directly charge from a regular battery bank via USB-C. There are also third-party LP-E6NH batteries from brands like K&F Concept that have USB-C ports built into them, so you don’t need a special charger to recharge them.
However, if you’re not looking to buy more batteries and your camera can’t charge via USB-C, this could be a good way to keep your camera going while away from a plug. The brand also makes power banks for Canon LP-E17 batteries, Fujifilm NP-W126S and NP-W235 batteries, and Sony NP-FZ100 batteries. One thing to note if you’re shopping around on llano’s Amazon site is that it also makes regular battery chargers that don’t have power banks built-in and thus need to be plugged into the wall to charge your batteries.
Redesigned Satchels
 |
| Image: ProMaster |
ProMaster has updated its lineup of Jasper camera bags, adding a new size of satchel and a rolltop pack. The company says it’s redesigned the main compartment, adding sewn-on accessory pouches to the removable insert. The bags also include straps fitted with quick-release buckles to hold a tripod. The bags all have a water-resistant treatment and include a rain cover.
The lineup now includes a $99 ‘small’ 4L satchel, a $119 ‘medium’ 6.8L satchel, and a $139 ‘large’ 10L satchel, which ProMaster says can carry a 16” Macbook Pro along with a camera, lens, and other accessories.
 |
| Image: ProMaster |
The new rolltop pack costs $159 and has 7.5L of space in its main compartment, with up to 9 additional liters in the rolltop section. Like many camera-focused backpacks, your actual camera gear is stored and accessed on the side of the pack that’s facing your back, which adds an extra layer of security.
A new version of ACDSee
 |
| Image: ACDSee |
ACD Systems has announced a new version of its photo editing and organization software, ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2025. As with many products this year, the main selling point is AI – the software now includes an AI-powered upscaling and noise reduction tool, which can be GPU accelerated alongside the rest of Photo Studio’s AI features.
The company also says it’s improved its AI selection mask and sky replacement tools. Outside of AI, the company has also added tabs to Photo Studio’s management mode, the ability to easily copy a file’s path, and an activity manager.
A lifetime license for the software, which is set to be released later this month, currently costs $149.99 from the company’s website.
Keep an eye out
This week, Petapixel covered a company that’s making an electronic variable diffusion filter. While this type of tech has been around for ND filters for a while, but this is reportedly the first time it’s being used to give footage a dream-like glow rather than to darken it.
The tech is made by LC-Tec, and likely won’t be commercially available until next year. When it does hit shelves, though, it could be a way to get a very cool effect when shooting videos.
Shooting for the New York Times
Finally, let’s round out this roundup with an educational opportunity – because what is improving your camera setup if you’re not also improving your photography skills? This week’s piece of photography content comes from YouTuber Justin Mott, who recently released a video detailing how he approached a portrait assignment from the New York Times (via Fstoppers). The video mainly focuses on process, going into detail on planning the shoot, working with the subjects and organizing the photos for delivery afterwards.
Mott provides a link to the final story that has one of his images, as well as a gallery of the photos he took on the assignment. If you’re interested in the gear side of photojournalism, Mott also made a video detailing what cameras and lenses he brought to the shoot.
For those who are more into cinematography, YouTuber Luc Forsyth recently made a video going over how he packed and prepped his gear before heading out to work as a director of photography on a relatively high-budget shoot. It also has a fair number of tips that could be useful for working photographers as well.
Click to see last week’s accessory roundup
|
The X100 didn’t hit the shelves until early 2011 but it generated interest from the moment it was announced.
Photo: Andy Westlake |
As part of our twenty-fifth anniversary, we’re looking back at some of the most significant cameras launched during that period. Without question, the Fujifilm FinePix X100, announced fourteen years ago today, is one of those cameras.
It wasn’t the first large-sensor fixed lens compact: that honor goes to Sigma’s DP1, which squeezed one of its 20.7 x 13.8 mm Foveon chips into a small, minimalist body, but it was the first to really catch the collective photography imagination.
Back in 2010, the first Mirrorless cameras were arriving, so you could buy a Panasonic GF1 with the company’s 20mm F1.7 lens or an Olympus PEN, also with the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 if you had any sense. But those were the only options if you wanted a small camera with good image quality. Both were, at that point, very obviously a technology and lens system that was still developing.
Beyond these you only really had two choices: you could buy a DSLR if you wanted a Four Thirds sensor or anything larger, or an enthusiast compact based around a Type 1/1.7 chip (7.4 x 5.6mm), which was, at best, one-fifth of the size. Maybe a Type 2/3 (8.8 x 6.6mm) if you were really lucky, but that’s still a two-stop difference compared with the smallest-sensor DSLR, simply because the sensor is no better than 1/4 the size. But even the smallest DSLRs weren’t particularly small, especially once you put a lens on them.
Read about the subsequent history of the Fujifilm X100 series
With its APS-C sensor and F2 lens, the X100 had an immediate image quality benefit over any existing compact camera, and its self-contained nature meant it made more sense as a second camera for DSLR owners who didn’t want to have a foot in two lens mounts by becoming a Mirrorless early adopter.
Then there were its looks. These may not play a part in the end images (though the “is that a film camera?” response from bystanders wasn’t a bad way to raise the idea of taking their photo), but they made the camera look and feel a bit special. And who ever said photography is a pursuit based on cold rationality?
 |
|
This is probably what people mean when they refer to ‘classic styling.’
Photo: Andy Westlake |
So the X100 had appeal on multiple levels: it was one of the smallest cameras to offer such high image quality, it would work alongside other systems without complicating your commitments, it looked good and took really good-looking photos.
It was also, at launch, recognizably a work in progress. Our original review had a page dedicated to bugs and odd behaviors, many of which got ironed-out over a series of firmware updates. It was slow, it was quirky and yet it caused an awful lot of photographers to fall in love with it.
I still have my original X100 and will sometimes still use it (which probably wouldn’t have been the case were it not for the significant improvement in autofocus that came nearly three years after its original launch). After fourteen years it really shows its age, and my experience is somewhat spoiled by having spent a considerable amount of time shooting with its five successor models.
 |
|
The X100 (Rear) has long ago been superseded but its most recent descendent, the X100 VI (Front) is still very much in demand.
Photo: Richard Butler |
We’ve seen many attempts by other manufacturers in this space: Leica’s APS-C X series pre-dated the X100 but seems to have been superseded by the full-frame Q models, while the 28mm equiv Nikon Coolpix A and X70 and XF10 from Fujifilm seem to have fallen by the wayside. Only Ricoh’s move of its much-loved GR premium compacts to APS-C seems to have had anything like the longevity of the X100 series. And, while there’s plenty of skepticism from people who aren’t 35mm equiv fans and those put off by its recent five minutes of fame on TikTok, the X100 started a series that’s still very much in demand, fourteen years later.
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
world news10 months ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
-
Camera3 years agoCharles ‘Chuck’ Geschke, co-founder of Adobe and inventor of the PDF, dies at 81
-
Camera10 months agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
Solar Energy10 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
world news10 months ago
Strong majority of Americans support Israel-Hamas hostage deal
-
TOP SCEINCE5 months agoCan animals count?
-
Camera11 months agoSony a9 III: what you need to know
Pingback: Google shares a deep dive into its new HDR+ with Bracketing technology found in its latest Pixel devices