• 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 / GFX 100 EDR vs ISO

GFX 100 EDR vs ISO

August 2, 2019 JimK 5 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “GFX 100”.

I finally received my GFX 100 yesterday, so I’ll be posting a lot about it in the coming weeks. The first thing I did was perform my read noise tests on it. A few days ago, I did the same thing with samples that Lloyd Chambers has generously sent me. Today I’ll do it with my new camera.

But first, I want to rant. Why, oh why, does Fuji have to drastically change the user interface with every darned version of the GFX? This is the third, and all three have significant differences. The GFX 100 is far more different from the GFX 50S (the ur-GFX) than the GFX 50R was, and it is always a jarring experience for me to switch back and forth between the 50R and 50S. Eventually, I’ll learn the new interface, but switching back to one of the 50 MP  GFXs will continue to be problematical. It’s not that the GFX 100 UI is bad, although I like it less than the GFX 50S, but just that it’s different.

OK, I feel better with that off my chest.

Here’s a set of curves showing the engineering dynamic range (EDR), which I’m defining here as full scale divided by the root-mean-square (rms) value of the read noise, using 14-bit raw precision and no compression. Shutter speed was 1/1000 second. All these tests were done with no lens. I used a body cap to get the dark field. The curves are all done using 600×600 pixel crops that have been shifted leftward just far enough to avoid the center column of the sensor, which is sometimes the site of  aberrant behavior.

Doesn’t look much different from my results with Lloyd’s samples. Here’s what I said then:

The presence of the Aptina-DRPix technology is evident: that’s what causes the jump at the transition from ISO 400 to ISO 500. All four raw channels have the same DR until the ISO gets quite high, at which point the green channels do a little better than the red and the blue. There’s a funny kink in the curve at the transition to ISO 200. The black point also changes at this transition.I could show you a bunch of other modes separately, but they’re all so close that it would be pointless, so I’ll do a few comparisons.

Let’s compare 14-bit precision vs 16-bit raw precision, with electronic shutter (ES):

Mechanical vs electronic shutter at 14-bit precision:

EFCS versus all-mechanical shutter at 14-bit precision:

There may be some subtle improvements from using 16-bit precision, and I’ll be testing for that, but it looks like the read noise is high enough to adequately dither the analog to digital converter even at 14 bits.

My camera is a bit more consistent, but just about as noisy, as Lloyd’s.

Next up: EDR versus shutter speed.

GFX 100

← Diffraction and ultimate FF pixel count Fuji GFX 100 EDR vs shutter speed →

Comments

  1. sh6k says

    August 2, 2019 at 5:23 pm

    I agree with your rant on changing the interface! I was a “cold dead hands” Fuji (XT and GFX) shooter for 7 years because I loved the physical dials. When the GFX100 meant I was going to have to give them up, I gave serious consideration to other cameras I hadn’t considered because they were missing physical dials and ultimately traded in my whole Fuji bag for a Z7, which I love.

    Reply
  2. Steve says

    August 2, 2019 at 5:25 pm

    Congratulations, enjoy your new camera. I’ll be enjoyed it vicariously through your tests!

    Reply
  3. Erik Kaffehr says

    August 4, 2019 at 2:47 am

    Congratulations! Really looking forward to a lot of interesting reading! I also hope that you will really enjoy the camera and share a great part of images!

    Reply
  4. Narikin says

    August 5, 2019 at 12:07 pm

    Happy you got yours Jim. Well Done. Looking forward to more tests.

    2 questions from (not very technical) me:

    1: So you may as well shoot at ISO500 rather than ISO400, for the boost in DR that extra gain gives us, correct?

    2: Do the PDAF pixels which require interpolation to cover the sites where we are missing real color info, mean there might be a small of sharpness compared to a similar sensor without PDAF pixels embedded? (eg Phase One IQ150, or IQ100)

    Reply
    • JimK says

      August 5, 2019 at 12:24 pm

      So you may as well shoot at ISO500 rather than ISO400, for the boost in DR that extra gain gives us, correct?

      Sort of. If you cut down on the exposure by a third of a stop when you go to ISO 500, you’ll have a worse SNR in the midtones and highlights than at ISO 400, but a better SNR in the deep shadows. For most images, the GFX 100 has plenty of highlight and midtone SNR, so it can be a good tradeoff.

      Do the PDAF pixels which require interpolation to cover the sites where we are missing real color info, mean there might be a small of sharpness compared to a similar sensor without PDAF pixels embedded?

      They do indeed require interpolation, and this could in theory cause a loss in sharpness, but I’ve never been able to measure such a loss with other MILCs that use OSDAF, so I wouldn’t worry about it. I’m about to post an analysis of the GFX 100 sharpness.

      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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.