Erik_A Senior Member 441 posts Likes: 6 Joined Jun 2011 More info | Sep 19, 2018 10:22 | #1 It looks like the Fujifilm X-T3 worse high-iso noise from RAW files than the X-T2. I wonder if that is because they switched from Sony to Samsung manufactured sensors.  Image hosted by forum (933985) © Erik_A [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
05Xrunner Goldmember, Flipflopper.  More info | Sep 19, 2018 10:54 | #2 I think its impressive to see the XT2 is doing a pretty decent job keeping up with a 5DIV at high ISO My gear
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kirkt Cream of the Crop More info | Sep 19, 2018 13:58 | #3 It's probably a toss up, considering that the above screenshot is comparing raw renderings and using ACR 11 - it may be better to examine the JPEGs, which will probably have some NR applied in camera, but at least will represent Fujifilm's interpretation of the image data as opposed to a as-of-yet non-available raw converter's. Once other raw converters support the XT-3, then the raw files can be examined and the larger X-T3 image can be resampled to the size of the XT-2, etc. Kirk
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 19, 2018 15:45 | #4 Kevin Mullins posted a shot last week in low light, he put it in his X-T3 video here: https://youtu.be/Aap8NUsVfZw?t=14m15s Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AlanU Cream of the Crop More info Post edited over 5 years ago by AlanU. (3 edits in all) | Sep 19, 2018 18:54 | #5 http://www.aevansphoto.com/does_fuji_cheat_iso/ 5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cug Member 142 posts Likes: 57 Joined Oct 2015 More info | It might be that Fujifilm has finally gotten around and is using an ISO standard that is closer to the rest – so it might not be directly comparable. They've always been between 1/3 and 2/3 of a stop off from my Canon gear. Maybe it's just that they are now more in line.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AlanU Cream of the Crop More info Post edited over 5 years ago by AlanU. | Sep 20, 2018 08:34 | #7 cug wrote in post #18711674  It might be that Fujifilm has finally gotten around and is using an ISO standard that is closer to the rest – so it might not be directly comparable. They've always been between 1/3 and 2/3 of a stop off from my Canon gear. Maybe it's just that they are now more in line. I guess Fuji using the new Samsung sensor in the XT3 is doing well considering it’s not a Sony cmos sensor. 5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TwoHotShoes Goldmember More info Post edited over 5 years ago by Two Hot Shoes. | Sep 20, 2018 08:47 | #8 AlanU wrote in post #18711838 The big draw to the new Fuji body is how it apparently has better auto focus in low light. The response of the new body is quite incredible and if I was A Fuji wedding photographer full-time I would have bare minimum pair of XT three on pre-order. However it does really seem the Samsung is falling short in lowlight performance. I think the price point of the new bodies is helping sales. Just watched a German Fuji X photographer do a comparison and both XT2 and XT3 seemed quite close in low light performance . Fuji have stated in their press release that they have increased resolution with no loss of image quality at high ISO values so not really a surprise to find them very similar at 12800ISO. Mr Mullins did point out he thought the 12800 JPEGs from the camera looked a bit tidier on the X-T3 over the X-T2. Sure stick with you a7s or whatever and enjoy shooting when there is crappy light or learn to add light and drag the shutter a bit or just learn how to get the best out of one camera. Plenty of 12800ISO images in this forum that are full of detail and colour taken with Fuji cameras, all you have to do is look... Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kirkt Cream of the Crop More info Post edited over 5 years ago by kirkt. | Sep 20, 2018 08:47 | #9 AlanU wrote in post #18711544 http://www.aevansphoto.com/does_fuji_cheat_iso/ Which ISO standard does Fuji use? I’m not aware which one Fuji follows. ... Fujifilm uses SOS. Canon uses REI. The link you quoted tells you this if you read the article. So does the internet. We often see today in the specifications for digital cameras that the "sensitivity" is presented in terms of the metric(s) ISO SOS and/or ISO REI. What does that mean? It is a long story, and I will start with some background. Classical reflected light exposure metering In what I call classical reflected light exposure metering (whether with a free-standing exposure meter or via an inbuilt automatic exposure system) the "instrument" measures the average scene luminance. From that, plus the "sensitivity" of the film or digital imaging system, a photographic exposure (combination of shutter speed and aperture) is recommended or put into effect. This is quite a leap of faith, given the variations in scene structure and the existence of various "exposure strategies" the photographer might want to follow. But it is simple to do, and for many years it was the basic for much exposure planning. Now assume the following (we will assume a digital camera): • The "calibration" of the automatic exposure system (we will work with that rather than a free-standing meter as the standards are more "singular") is per the applicable ISO standard. • The ISO speed of the digital imaging system (an input to the equation of the automatic exposure system) is determined per the applicable ISO standard (using the "saturation" basis). Now imagine that we shoot a scene with such a camera in which the average luminance is 18% of the peak (highlight) luminance (the infamous "typical scene". Then, for a "metered" exposure, the result on the sensor will be that the photometric exposure for a highlight area will be 70.7% of the saturation photometric exposure ("1/2 stop below it"). The average photometric exposure will be 12.8% of the saturation photometric exposure. A collateral implication is that if we take a metered exposure of a uniform-luminance scene (perhaps a frame-filling gray card), the photometric exposure anywhere on the sensor is 12.8% of the saturation photometric exposure. You were expecting maybe 18%? Well, 12.8% is just about 18% of 70.7% of the saturation photometric exposure. The "1/2 stop" distance is often called the exposure metering "headroom", a term borrowed from a similar matter in sound recording. Its purpose is to avert overexposure in the event that, for the actual scene being shot, the average luminance is less than 18% of the peak (highlight) luminance. (It's not enough if the average luminance is below 12.8% of the peak luminance.) Intelligent metering Of course modern cameras use a much more sophisticated approach to automatic exposure control, which involves measuring the scene luminance at multiple points (maybe even at every pixel location), and concluding from that what the range of scene luminance is (at least over the regions that we are probably interested in). Typically, the "calibration" of such a system is stated by consideration of the photometric exposure that would result from a uniform luminance scene. If we made that consistent with the "calibration" of a "traditional" automatic exposure system , one possible implication would be that in a hypothetical "typical" scene, the photometric exposure for highlights would be 1/2 stop below the saturation photometric exposure. But this is a 1/2 stop waste of the "range" of the sensor system. No "headroom" is required, since the exposure control system deals with the actual (at least intelligently estimated) range of scene illuminance, not some simplistically-assumed range. Getting back the "headroom" Of course, we can readily reclaim the "headroom" by just making a 1/2 stop change in the calibration of the exposure control system. But there are some subtle downsides to that. One is that if we now use an external exposure meter (calibrated per the ISO standard for such) with the camera, for a "uniform luminance scene", the photographic exposure it will recommend will be different from that which the camera would adopt. This might make users think that the automatic exposure system in the camera was "miscalibrated". So a crafty ploy is used. The "rating" of the various sensitivity settings in the camera, as ISO speed, is understated by 1/2 stop (compared to the ISO definition). This shifts the photographic exposure that would be set by the camera (or recommended by an external exposure meter) "hotter" by 1/2 stop, thus "burning the headroom". Exposure index Before I proceed with the story, I must speak of another term that will soon be part of the story. When exposure metering first came into existence, there was of course no established numerical way to express the sensitivity of a certain film type. Thus, exposure meter manufacturers (such as Weston) devised there own premises and scales of sensitivity, and then did research to determine what the value of that metric was for available film types. These were listed in a pamphlet the user got with the exposure meter. In many cases, this metric was called the exposure index of the film. Eventually, standard schemes of rating film sensitivity were established, such as (in the US) by the American Standards Association. The metric was labeled "ASA film speed". "Speed" was a common colloquialism for film sensitivity, since, for a given scene luminance and a given aperture, the greater the sensitivity, the faster would be the needed shutter speed. The ASA sensitivity system eventually was embraced by an international standard system, where the metric is called the "ISO speed" of the film. Today, "exposure index" has taken on a new meaning: "what we tell the metering system is the ISO speed of the film or sensor". What does that mean? Suppose we are shooting with film rated at ISO 200, but we recognize that the lighting situation is such that we would like to decrease the photographic exposure from what the meter will recommend by 1/2 stop (what today we would usually call -1/2 stop of exposure compensation - the formal term is exposure bias). There is no "exposure compensation" setting on our meter, but we set the "ISO dial" to ISO 280. That will cause the meter to issue a 1/2 stop less photographic exposure recommendation that would be normal. So the little dial marked "ISO" is where we set, not necessarily the ISO speed of the film, but rather the "exposure index" at which we want the exposure reckoned. Back to the story Before our little excursion into the significance of "exposure index", I mentioned that, in order to "burn the headroom" of the traditional exposure metering equation when we were using "intelligent" metering systems, we could understate the ISO sensitivity of the system that was fed to the inbuilt automatic exposure system (or set into an external light meter as the "exposure index"). But in fact that meant lack of compliance with the established ISO definition of ISO speed, at the least intellectually troublesome, and with some implications about understating the low-light potential of the camera. So a few years ago, the ISO added to the standard for the "sensitivity" of digital camera imaging systems two new metrics (in addition to ISO speed): • The ISO Standard Output Sensitivity (ISO SOS). For all practical purposes, this metric is determined the same way as the ISO speed using the "saturation" basis, but will have a value that is 70.4% of the ISO speed (almost exactly "1/2 stop lower). If the ISO SOS value is fed to the automatic exposure system, or used as the exposure index into a free-standing exposure meter, then the "1/2 stop bump" in photographic exposure, needed to "burn the headroom", will occur. • The ISO Recommended Exposure Index (ISO REI). This value can be chosen by the camera manufacturer, at its discretion, for use an an exposure index to attain an arbitrary bump in the photographic exposure compared to that based in the ISO speed which the manufacturer feels will be most useful for typical photographic tasks. There is no technical definition. It is to be chosen for the desired result. If the camera manufacturer wants to adopt the exact "bump" in photometric exposure implied by the ISO SOS value, he can make that clear by stating the determined ISO SOS value and then stating the same number as the ISO REI value. Thus, if for one position of the "ISO" control on the camera, the manufacturer says, in the specifications, that is is "ISO 400 (SOS/REI)", he is saying that: • The ISO speed at that setting is about ISO 568. • The automatic exposure system in this camera will choose the photographic exposure according to the industry standard exposure equation for ISO speed of ISO 568. • It is recommended that, in using a free-standing exposure meter, you set the "ISO" setting (exposure index) to ISO 568. Woof! Best regards, Doug More here: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/SOS_REI.pdf Kirk
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Pretty sure I posted this info at least once before, some people on here have short memories, including some who commented on the very similar thread to this one [not you Kirk], or at least how this one is dragging into the Fuji ISO measurement debate. Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AlanU Cream of the Crop More info Post edited over 5 years ago by AlanU. | Sep 20, 2018 09:34 | #11 Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18711863 Pretty sure I posted this info at least once before, some people on here have short memories, including some who commented on the very similar thread to this one [not you Kirk], or at least how this one is dragging into the Fuji ISO measurement debate. I think we'll all just have to wait and see how the Higher ISO looks on the X-T3 when apps like Lightroom are about to deal with the raw files from that camera. Kim, 5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AlanU Cream of the Crop More info | Sep 20, 2018 09:42 | #12 If the Fuji is tested at iso 12,800 (sos standard) the Canon and Nikon should be tested at iso 9088 (REI iso standard). Unfortunately there’s is no setting in those cameras. 5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TwoHotShoes Goldmember More info Post edited over 5 years ago by Two Hot Shoes. (2 edits in all) | ISO is a totally arbitrary setting within a set of parameters that the camera manufactures see as best for them, with the REI standard anyway. SOS standard is more ridged. Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AlanU Cream of the Crop More info | Sep 20, 2018 18:48 | #14 Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18711964 ISO is a totally arbitrary setting within a set of parameters that the camera manufactures see as best for them, with the REI standard anyway. SOS standard is more ridged. Heres the reverent bits for you Alan. But like most things related to photography worrying about a 1/3 of a stop here and there is of little coincidence when really one needs to think about the composition - I doubt it ever make a difference in the real world. "The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model’s EI choices arbitrarily. The choices are based solely on the manufacturer’s opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings. This is the only technique available under the standard for output formats that are not in the sRGB color space. This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used. The Standard Output Sensitivity (SOS) technique, also new in the 2006 version of the standard, effectively specifies that the average level in the sRGB image must be 18% gray plus or minus 1/3 stop when the exposure is controlled by an automatic exposure control system calibrated per ISO 2721 and set to the EI with no exposure compensation. Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically JPEG—and not to output files in raw image format. It is not applicable when multi-zone metering is used." Add into that an understanding of how and why the signal is amplified as the gain is increased in the processor and you'll have a good understanding of the basics of it. Not that is really matters anyway outside of forums and the pub/camera club. I agree there's a lot of info here. But regardless , using ISO 12,800 is not the same standard between Canon/Nikon and Fuji's (SOS) Iso numbers. That's a misrepresentation of a "real" test between Fuji and Canon/Nikon. Definitely not a comparison of apples to apples. Visually the advantage goes to Fuji iso numbers. 5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
LOG IN TO REPLY |
EverydayGetaway Cream of the Crop  More info | Sep 21, 2018 12:06 | #15 Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18711964 But like most things related to photography worrying about a 1/3 of a stop here and there is of little coincidence when really one needs to think about the composition - I doubt it ever make a difference in the real world. This. Fuji X-T3 // Fuji X-Pro2 (Full Spectrum) // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1447 guests, 131 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
