• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 100 II / Fujifilm GFX 100 II — ISO 80 and 100 shadow noise, visuals

Fujifilm GFX 100 II — ISO 80 and 100 shadow noise, visuals

October 5, 2023 JimK 5 Comments

This is the fifteenth post in a series of tests of the Fujifilm GFX 100, Mark II. You can find all the posts in this series by going to the Categories pane in the right hand panel and clicking on “GFX 100 II”.

I’ve done a lot of quantitative work aimed at figuring out what the heck is going on with the ISO 80 setting of the GFX 100I II, without really understanding it yet. You could say I’m just as confused as when I started, but at a much higher level. Sometimes quantitative methods alone are not enough; you have to take a look.

For this test, I mounted a 110 mm f/2 Fuji GF lens on the GFX 100 II, put the camera on a RRS tripod and C1 head, turned AF-S on, and set an exposure that by the camera’s metering system, was 5 stops down from normal for the ISO 80 shot.

The rest of the particulars:

  • ISO 80 and ISO 100
  • f/4 at 1/25 second
  • EFCS
  • 14-bit precision
  • Single shot drive mode
  • Same exposure for each, so same photon noise in each image; this is a test about read noise

Developed in Lightroom, with default settings except:

  • 5-stop Exposure move
  • Shadows +70
  • Blacks +26
  • Noise reduction turned off
  • Sharpening amount 20 (default is 40)
  • White balanced to the white text in Hunt’s book on color

Here is the whole frame at both ISOs.

1/25 at f/4 ISO 80

 

1/25 at f/4, ISO 100

You can see that the 1/3 stop “overexposure” doesn’t make all that much difference.

Some about 150% crops of a generously exposed region:

 

1/25 at f/4 ISO 80

 

1/25 at f/4, ISO 100

Not much difference.

Now a darker region:

1/25 at f/4 ISO 80

 

1/25 at f/4, ISO 100

The ISO 100 image is noisier. Not night and day nosier, but definitely noisier. This is a dark enough region that the read noise is significant (unlike the well-lit crops above), and the read noise reduction at ISO 80 compared to ISO 100 is visually apparent, and not just something that quantitative programs notice.

Here’s another section of the image, cropped the same way.

1/25 at f/4 ISO 80

 

1/25 at f/4, ISO 100

I still don’t know what the camera is doing at ISO 80, but I now know it’s not just a trick of the numbers.

There are color shifts in the deep shadows. Those are due to inadequate black point calibration in Lightroom. I used the default calibration for these images. Custom calibration could remove most, if not all of the differences.

GFX 100 II

← Fujifilm GFX 100 II — FWC, input referred RN, photon transfer curves Fujifilm GFX 100 II — deep shadow noise at 14 and 16 bit precision →

Comments

  1. Christian says

    October 6, 2023 at 2:17 am

    have you considered that maybe the background processing applied by adobe software plays a roll as the camera is not officially supported yet ? using c1 and adjusting the 80/100iso files for brightness and WB differences makes the noise level indistinguishable at 400%. i have repeated your test using a colorchecker and a sekonic munsell target with studio flash, 14 and 16 bit captures also including a -6 stop underexposure. there seems to be a very small advantage for 16 bit and the difference between 80 to 100 iso seems also a little bit more pronounced with 14 bit but I´m not really sure but the 14bit files underexposed 6 stops fall totally apart with a green shadow cast while the 16bit files hold up rather well and stay fairly neutral. the iso 80 14bit shot holds up also a little better but not much. think this green cast problem is already visible in your -5 sample files.

    Reply
  2. Eric says

    October 6, 2023 at 4:22 am

    I feel they did something with blue channel.

    Reply
  3. Emmmmmmmm says

    October 13, 2023 at 1:29 pm

    I’m glad you reviewed the GFX100 II, you always provide such useful and truthful information.

    I suspect that the ISO80 mode is possibly achieved by accumulating the capacitance of the two saturations of ISO100 and ISO500 (filling HCG/ISO500 first, then overflowing to fill LCG/ISO100), and arithmetically this superposition approximates ISO80.

    But here’s a question, if it’s just expanding the CFD to the level of possible nonlinearity that it should have originally been, it shouldn’t result in a dynamic range increase, and in fact your tests show that it has no nonlinearity issues.

    Another possibility is that Fuji customized the HDR function for double conversion gain reading on the CIS side to use the HCG as the dark part of the LCG+HCG.

    In that case, perhaps a review of the difference in reading times at ISO80, ISO100, and ISO500 should show it: since DCG-HDR requires double the reading time.

    However, one cannot rule out the possibility that Fuji uses two SCG readouts in other readout modes to synchronize the DCG readout time. In that case it would be difficult to recognize.
    But if the ISO80 is designed with DCG-HDR, it should have less dark noise than the ISO100, which would fit your ISO lessness test.

    The above is my personal opinion.

    Hats off to you.

    Reply
  4. Johan Peijnenburg says

    December 14, 2023 at 9:29 am

    The initial rendition of GFX100II files taken at ISO 80, seems off in Capture One as well. Blacks are washed out and whits do not transition smoothly to the highlights. This happens when using the Auto setting for the curve. Switching to something like Film Standard makes things better, however I get the feeling it is still not ideal compared to how GFX100 files are rendered.

    At the moment I don’t see the same issues in LR … did they fix the calibration for it?

    Best, Johan

    Reply
  5. Chris O says

    March 23, 2024 at 7:13 am

    Finally! With this information I will be able to take compelling photographs. If my audience disagrees I will simply l remind them that I shot at iso 80 and that if they bring their microscope, they will see the superior nature of my work. Thank you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.