• 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 100S / GFX 100S, X2D 30-second-exposure self heating

GFX 100S, X2D 30-second-exposure self heating

October 9, 2022 JimK 1 Comment

This is the 19th in a series of posts on the Hasselblad X2D 100C camera and the XCD lenses. You will be able to find all the posts in this series by looking at the righthand column on this page and finding the Category “X2D”. It’s also about the GFX 100S, so I’ve tagged it for that camera, as well.

Under most use scenarios, the X2D gets hotter in your hand than the GFX 100S. Does that affect image noise? I set up a test of the two cameras. In a 22 degree Celsius room, I set the ISO on both cameras to 1600, the shutter speed to 30 seconds for the GFX and 32 seconds for the X2D, put a lens cap on the XCD38 and the GF 30, turned IBIS on, and, using the built-in intervalometers, told each camera to make a 30-second expo0sure every 60 seconds.

For each of the raw channels, I plotted the engineering dynamic range (EDR) for a reference signal to noise ratio of zero. Under those conditions, the EDR is full scale over the RMS noise. I converted that ratio to stops.

 

 

It’s interesting that, in the ‘blad, the two green raw channels have different EDRs.

Plotting both camera on the same graph:

 

I used the average of all the raw channels for the above graph. The red line is the X2D data corrected for he difference in sensitivities between the two cameras.

The differences between the corrected XCD data and the GFX data is small. It looks like the X2D shows even less self-heating than the GFX 100S. Here’s a wild guess: that’s due to better thermal coupling of the sensor on the Hasselblad to the camera body.

I ran the tests with full batteries on both cameras. At the end, the X2D battery read 75%, and the GFX had 3 bars out of five.

In this test, the EVF’s were off. The EVF of the Hasselblad is higher resolution than the one in the GFX 100S, and may consume more power. In this test, neither camera got very hot to the touch.

GFX 100S, X2D

← My most life-changing piece of photographic equipment Hasselblad X2D FWC, RN, and PTC’s →

Comments

  1. David Bateman says

    October 9, 2022 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder if the phase detection pixels of the Hasselblad are in just one of the green channels. Olympus did that on the Em1mk1.

    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.