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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.