If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Something from me at ISO 3200
On 4/07/2015 12:35 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
Rather than my typical ISO 200-ISO 800 shots, here is a shot of an Edison Amberola at ISO 3200, 1/45 sec and f/4.0 in not so good light. Taken with the X-E2 and XF 35mm f/1.4, no flash. https://db.tt/UxL1pkkC -- Regards, Savageduck ISO 3200 on Fuji X-trans isn't the same as ISO 3200 sensitivity on other cameras. Fuji overstate sensitivity by as much as 2/3 stop. In use it doesn't matter - so long as you expose correctly, but if you have to use 2/3 stop wider aperture or longer shutter speed for the same exposure as another camera set at the same nominal ISO setting, then you're at risk of comparing apples with pears. It looks better than it really is. A dirty trick by Fuji to fool the unwary. There's also something going on with Fuji NR at camera settings over ISO1600, with the appearance of the camera applying NR to raw files. An explanation that I've seen states that it's because of demosaicing - but that doesn't wash. The ratio of RG&B photosites is the same. DXO aren't testing these cameras. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Something from me at ISO 3200
On 2015-07-05 22:50:30 +0000, Me said:
On 4/07/2015 12:35 p.m., Savageduck wrote: Rather than my typical ISO 200-ISO 800 shots, here is a shot of an Edison Amberola at ISO 3200, 1/45 sec and f/4.0 in not so good light. Taken with the X-E2 and XF 35mm f/1.4, no flash. https://db.tt/UxL1pkkC ISO 3200 on Fuji X-trans isn't the same as ISO 3200 sensitivity on other cameras. Fuji overstate sensitivity by as much as 2/3 stop. Where did you come by that information? Please cite. In use it doesn't matter - so long as you expose correctly, but if you have to use 2/3 stop wider aperture or longer shutter speed for the same exposure as another camera set at the same nominal ISO setting, then you're at risk of comparing apples with pears. It looks better than it really is. A dirty trick by Fuji to fool the unwary. Again, please cite the basis for that accusation. There's also something going on with Fuji NR at camera settings over ISO1600, with the appearance of the camera applying NR to raw files. Where did you get that information? Please cite. I am not using Fuji X-E2 in-camera NR. I am shooting RAW only and all NR is done in post. An explanation that I've seen states that it's because of demosaicing - but that doesn't wash. The ratio of RG&B photosites is the same. So, post the source of the information you have seen. DXO aren't testing these cameras. So what? From what I can see the reason DxOMark fail to tested the Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS II sensor cameras, is because it is not a traditional Bayer array and DxOMark has no tests or protocol in place to actually measure it. Ultimately DxOMark isn't always the authority on this stuff. Especially when they don't have the means to conduct the tests. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Something from me at ISO 3200
On 6/07/2015 11:56 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-05 22:50:30 +0000, Me said: On 4/07/2015 12:35 p.m., Savageduck wrote: Rather than my typical ISO 200-ISO 800 shots, here is a shot of an Edison Amberola at ISO 3200, 1/45 sec and f/4.0 in not so good light. Taken with the X-E2 and XF 35mm f/1.4, no flash. https://db.tt/UxL1pkkC ISO 3200 on Fuji X-trans isn't the same as ISO 3200 sensitivity on other cameras. Fuji overstate sensitivity by as much as 2/3 stop. Where did you come by that information? Please cite. In use it doesn't matter - so long as you expose correctly, but if you have to use 2/3 stop wider aperture or longer shutter speed for the same exposure as another camera set at the same nominal ISO setting, then you're at risk of comparing apples with pears. It looks better than it really is. A dirty trick by Fuji to fool the unwary. Again, please cite the basis for that accusation. "By our tests, the X-E2's measured sensitivities are around 1/2 - 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, the X-E2 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed, brighter aperture or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera. It's unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we're disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous." Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-E2/13 So DP review call it "rather disingenuous". I'd rather just call it for what it is - a dirty trick. There's also something going on with Fuji NR at camera settings over ISO1600, with the appearance of the camera applying NR to raw files. Where did you get that information? Please cite. I am not using Fuji X-E2 in-camera NR. I am shooting RAW only and all NR is done in post. Not necessarily: (this referring to conversion from "raw" in ACR) "The dramatic advantage the X-E2 showed in the previous test is also apparent if processed with Adobe Camera Raw. The results are almost implausibly good, even taking into account the camera's additional exposure. This suggests that some non-optional noise reduction is creeping into the process somewhere." Source - as above. An explanation that I've seen states that it's because of demosaicing - but that doesn't wash. The ratio of RG&B photosites is the same. So, post the source of the information you have seen. DXO aren't testing these cameras. So what? So - posting a sample image and comparing it to other sample images from other cameras as a basis for ISO performance comparison is fraught with problems when manufacturers overstate ISO and tamper with raw files. What are DP Review to do? They could adjust their "comparometer" to real ISO, but instead choose to point out "disingenuous" specifications. Olympus also "cheat" much more than average - but DXOMark nailed them. Almost nobody cares of course - tell an Olympus user that, and most would either bury their heads in the sand or argue in circles. The OMD series ISO settings are about a stop exaggerated - compared with Pentax who seem to be about the most honest with ISO ratings. Even Canon and Nikon cheat a little (ISO 3200 on a Canon 6d is actually ISO 2400 vs 2933 on a Pentax K3 vs 1584 on an OMD EM-5 Mk II) One thing you don't see is "error" with ISO rating so cameras look worse than they really are. Looking better than they really are is good marketing - no? It would be nice if DXO could report on the X-trans cameras. From what I can see the reason DxOMark fail to tested the Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS II sensor cameras, is because it is not a traditional Bayer array and DxOMark has no tests or protocol in place to actually measure it. Ultimately DxOMark isn't always the authority on this stuff. Especially when they don't have the means to conduct the tests. DXOMark, for their failings, at least have consistent methodology. The main valid criticism is the weightings they use for "headline" scores. The data behind it is sound. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Something from me at ISO 3200
On 2015-07-06 01:24:48 +0000, Me said:
On 6/07/2015 11:56 a.m., Savageduck wrote: On 2015-07-05 22:50:30 +0000, Me said: On 4/07/2015 12:35 p.m., Savageduck wrote: Rather than my typical ISO 200-ISO 800 shots, here is a shot of an Edison Amberola at ISO 3200, 1/45 sec and f/4.0 in not so good light. Taken with the X-E2 and XF 35mm f/1.4, no flash. https://db.tt/UxL1pkkC ISO 3200 on Fuji X-trans isn't the same as ISO 3200 sensitivity on other cameras. Fuji overstate sensitivity by as much as 2/3 stop. Where did you come by that information? Please cite. In use it doesn't matter - so long as you expose correctly, but if you have to use 2/3 stop wider aperture or longer shutter speed for the same exposure as another camera set at the same nominal ISO setting, then you're at risk of comparing apples with pears. It looks better than it really is. A dirty trick by Fuji to fool the unwary. Again, please cite the basis for that accusation. "By our tests, the X-E2's measured sensitivities are around 1/2 - 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, the X-E2 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed, brighter aperture or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera. It's unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we're disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous." Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-E2/13 So DP review call it "rather disingenuous". I'd rather just call it for what it is - a dirty trick. For now I can complain. I have yet to find a major issue with my X-E2 when it comes to IQ other than my own mistakes. There's also something going on with Fuji NR at camera settings over ISO1600, with the appearance of the camera applying NR to raw files. Where did you get that information? Please cite. I am not using Fuji X-E2 in-camera NR. I am shooting RAW only and all NR is done in post. Not necessarily: (this referring to conversion from "raw" in ACR) "The dramatic advantage the X-E2 showed in the previous test is also apparent if processed with Adobe Camera Raw. The results are almost implausibly good, even taking into account the camera's additional exposure. This suggests that some non-optional noise reduction is creeping into the process somewhere." "suggests" So they don't actually know what exactly is going on with the Fujifilm processors. They won't admit they don't know so they resort to vague statements and innuendo. Source - as above. An explanation that I've seen states that it's because of demosaicing - but that doesn't wash. The ratio of RG&B photosites is the same. So, post the source of the information you have seen. DXO aren't testing these cameras. So what? So - posting a sample image and comparing it to other sample images from other cameras as a basis for ISO performance comparison is fraught with problems when manufacturers overstate ISO and tamper with raw files. What are DP Review to do? I thought it was DxOMark which chose not to evaluate the X-Trans sensors, and why would DP Review be any more solid in their evaluation with a very non-standard sensor. They could adjust their "comparometer" to real ISO, but instead choose to point out "disingenuous" specifications. "comparometer" Don't you just love fabricated tech? Olympus also "cheat" much more than average - but DXOMark nailed them. Almost nobody cares of course - tell an Olympus user that, and most would either bury their heads in the sand or argue in circles. Not being an Olympus user, I don't care much either. The OMD series ISO settings are about a stop exaggerated - compared with Pentax who seem to be about the most honest with ISO ratings. Even Canon and Nikon cheat a little (ISO 3200 on a Canon 6d is actually ISO 2400 vs 2933 on a Pentax K3 vs 1584 on an OMD EM-5 Mk II) One thing you don't see is "error" with ISO rating so cameras look worse than they really are. Looking better than they really are is good marketing - no? It would be nice if DXO could report on the X-trans cameras. Perhaps. From what I can see the reason DxOMark fail to tested the Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS II sensor cameras, is because it is not a traditional Bayer array and DxOMark has no tests or protocol in place to actually measure it. Ultimately DxOMark isn't always the authority on this stuff. Especially when they don't have the means to conduct the tests. DXOMark, for their failings, at least have consistent methodology. The main valid criticism is the weightings they use for "headline" scores. The data behind it is sound. ....and at least DxOMark have the decency to admit they don't currently have the means to properly evaluate the X-Trans sensor, which is more than DP Review have done. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Something from me at ISO 3200
On 6/07/2015 3:23 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-06 01:24:48 +0000, Me said: On 6/07/2015 11:56 a.m., Savageduck wrote: On 2015-07-05 22:50:30 +0000, Me said: On 4/07/2015 12:35 p.m., Savageduck wrote: Rather than my typical ISO 200-ISO 800 shots, here is a shot of an Edison Amberola at ISO 3200, 1/45 sec and f/4.0 in not so good light. Taken with the X-E2 and XF 35mm f/1.4, no flash. https://db.tt/UxL1pkkC ISO 3200 on Fuji X-trans isn't the same as ISO 3200 sensitivity on other cameras. Fuji overstate sensitivity by as much as 2/3 stop. Where did you come by that information? Please cite. In use it doesn't matter - so long as you expose correctly, but if you have to use 2/3 stop wider aperture or longer shutter speed for the same exposure as another camera set at the same nominal ISO setting, then you're at risk of comparing apples with pears. It looks better than it really is. A dirty trick by Fuji to fool the unwary. Again, please cite the basis for that accusation. "By our tests, the X-E2's measured sensitivities are around 1/2 - 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, the X-E2 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed, brighter aperture or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera. It's unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we're disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous." Source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-E2/13 So DP review call it "rather disingenuous". I'd rather just call it for what it is - a dirty trick. For now I can complain. I have yet to find a major issue with my X-E2 when it comes to IQ other than my own mistakes. There's also something going on with Fuji NR at camera settings over ISO1600, with the appearance of the camera applying NR to raw files. Where did you get that information? Please cite. I am not using Fuji X-E2 in-camera NR. I am shooting RAW only and all NR is done in post. Not necessarily: (this referring to conversion from "raw" in ACR) "The dramatic advantage the X-E2 showed in the previous test is also apparent if processed with Adobe Camera Raw. The results are almost implausibly good, even taking into account the camera's additional exposure. This suggests that some non-optional noise reduction is creeping into the process somewhere." "suggests" So they don't actually know what exactly is going on with the Fujifilm processors. They won't admit they don't know so they resort to vague statements and innuendo. It's not a vague statement of innuendo. To get the same exposure in their studio tests with standard lighting and at the same f-stop, they had to double the exposure time. Given that some of those other cameras also mis-represent true ISO slightly, I suspect they are actually understating how much "off" the Fuji's ISO really is. Source - as above. An explanation that I've seen states that it's because of demosaicing - but that doesn't wash. The ratio of RG&B photosites is the same. So, post the source of the information you have seen. DXO aren't testing these cameras. So what? So - posting a sample image and comparing it to other sample images from other cameras as a basis for ISO performance comparison is fraught with problems when manufacturers overstate ISO and tamper with raw files. What are DP Review to do? I thought it was DxOMark which chose not to evaluate the X-Trans sensors, and why would DP Review be any more solid in their evaluation with a very non-standard sensor. It's not a "non-standard" sensor. It's a very standard CMOS sensor with a different layout from the normal Bayer RGBG filter array, but the same ratio (2:1) of G vs R&B. Fuji did once have non-standard sensors - ie in the S3, S5 etc. They could adjust their "comparometer" to real ISO, but instead choose to point out "disingenuous" specifications. "comparometer" Don't you just love fabricated tech? I don't like DPReview's "comparometer" much at all. Every time a new model is tested, DPReviews forums come alive with A-B comparisons - especially about high ISO noise performance. Nobody seems to care that if the ISO setting is inaccurate - then so is the comparison. It's almost a complete waste of time looking - certainly if minor differences are going to be fixated on and argued about. It's ridiculous as their flawed test also "incentivises" camera makers to stretch the truth. Analogous perhaps to "cycle beating" in auto manufacturer's emission/economy test methodology. DXO's figures offer a more consistent real ISO adjusted figure - but any time DXO is cited, the naysayers come out. Even when it's something blindingly obvious - like the relatively low ISO dynamic range in Canon sensors. Olympus also "cheat" much more than average - but DXOMark nailed them. Almost nobody cares of course - tell an Olympus user that, and most would either bury their heads in the sand or argue in circles. Not being an Olympus user, I don't care much either. The OMD series ISO settings are about a stop exaggerated - compared with Pentax who seem to be about the most honest with ISO ratings. Even Canon and Nikon cheat a little (ISO 3200 on a Canon 6d is actually ISO 2400 vs 2933 on a Pentax K3 vs 1584 on an OMD EM-5 Mk II) One thing you don't see is "error" with ISO rating so cameras look worse than they really are. Looking better than they really are is good marketing - no? It would be nice if DXO could report on the X-trans cameras. Perhaps. From what I can see the reason DxOMark fail to tested the Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS II sensor cameras, is because it is not a traditional Bayer array and DxOMark has no tests or protocol in place to actually measure it. Ultimately DxOMark isn't always the authority on this stuff. Especially when they don't have the means to conduct the tests. DXOMark, for their failings, at least have consistent methodology. The main valid criticism is the weightings they use for "headline" scores. The data behind it is sound. ...and at least DxOMark have the decency to admit they don't currently have the means to properly evaluate the X-Trans sensor, which is more than DP Review have done. DPReview don't do in-depth raw file analysis on any cameras. Yes DXOMark do admit that they don't have the means to do the analysis - using their software. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Something from me at ISO 3200
On 05/07/2015 23:50, Me wrote:
On 4/07/2015 12:35 p.m., Savageduck wrote: Rather than my typical ISO 200-ISO 800 shots, here is a shot of an Edison Amberola at ISO 3200, 1/45 sec and f/4.0 in not so good light. Taken with the X-E2 and XF 35mm f/1.4, no flash. https://db.tt/UxL1pkkC -- Regards, Savageduck ISO 3200 on Fuji X-trans isn't the same as ISO 3200 sensitivity on other cameras. Fuji overstate sensitivity by as much as 2/3 stop. In use it doesn't matter - so long as you expose correctly, but if you have to use 2/3 stop wider aperture or longer shutter speed for the same exposure as another camera set at the same nominal ISO setting, then you're at risk of comparing apples with pears. It looks better than it really is. A dirty trick by Fuji to fool the unwary. There's also something going on with Fuji NR at camera settings over ISO1600, with the appearance of the camera applying NR to raw files. An explanation that I've seen states that it's because of demosaicing - but that doesn't wash. The ratio of RG&B photosites is the same. DXO aren't testing these cameras. Interesting you should say that, I expose most things + 2/3 stop on my X-E1. I'm just a snapper, I mostly shoot JPEG and use Picasa to straighten and crop. Digging deeper is on my list of "to do sometime" (together with digitising 30 years worth of B/W negatives and slides). Still love the camera, though. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The E3 at ISO 3200 | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 32 | January 20th 08 06:15 AM |
The E3 at ISO 3200 | Chris[_4_] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 18th 08 12:07 AM |
20D and ISO 3200 | Mr. Mark | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | August 14th 05 05:18 AM |
ISO 3200? | Patrick L. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 48 | September 23rd 04 02:08 PM |
ISO 3200 ? | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 7 | September 20th 04 03:55 AM |