• 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 / Visual comparisons of Fuji GFX 100 and GFX 50R shadow noise

Visual comparisons of Fuji GFX 100 and GFX 50R shadow noise

August 8, 2019 JimK 2 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”.

In the last post, I looked at the differences between the shadow noise patterning with the GFX 100 set to make 14-bit and 16-bit raw files. I found the differences paled when compared to the banding caused by the on-sensor phase-detection autofocus (OSPDAF) system.

In this post, I’m going to do a similar comparison of the GFX 50R and GFX 100, when using 14-bit raw files. The subject is my bookcase. Here are the test conditions:

  • Fuji 110 mm f/2 lens on both cameras
  • f/5.6 at 1/50 second (about a 5-stop underexposure)
  • ISO 100
  • RRS legs, C1 head
  • 2 second self-timer

Here’s the full frame shot with the GFX 100.

I developed the images in Lightroom, and white-balanced each to the same spot with the eyedropper. Then I made some big shadow-lifting moves:

 

I cut back on Lr’s default sharpening, and turned off the noise correction:

 

Here are some crops at the same angle of view:

GFX 100

 

GFX 50R

 

The first thing to notice is the aliasing on the spine of the right-hand book in the GFX 50 R picture. There is some horizontal banding in both images, but it’s worse in the GFX 100 shot.

GFX 100

 

GFX 50R

The banding in the GFX 100 image is what attracts the eye. The noise is finer-grained in the GFX 100, which is a good thing.

GFX 100

 

GFX 50R

 

More of same.

My take: absent postproduction work to mitigate the OSPDAF banding of the GFX 100, and with no noise reduction, it has a usable dynamic range that is inferior to the GFX 50R. Because of the finer pitch, nonlinear noise reduction should be more effective with the GFX 100. I’ll test that in the next post.

 

GFX 100

← Visual comparisons of Fuji GFX 100 14 and 16 bit raw precision Fujifilm GFX 50R and 100 shadow noise with nonlinear noise reduction →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    August 9, 2019 at 12:05 am

    Jim, in these and the previous sets, did you upscale the ’50R or downscale the ‘100 – or both – to get them the same size?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      August 9, 2019 at 6:26 am

      They are both upscaled.

      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.