• 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 / Nikon Z6/7 / Speculating on the GFX 100S shadow noise performance

Speculating on the GFX 100S shadow noise performance

April 2, 2019 JimK 8 Comments

Bill Claff has recently posted photon transfer curves and input-referred read noise curves for the Phase One IQ4 150MP camera on his excellent web site. This camera uses the Sony IMX 411 sensor that Sony began shipping last year. Presumably, the announced-but-not-yet-shipping Fujifilm  GFX 100S will use the IMX 461 sensor that Sony also began to sell last year. The pitch of the two sensors are identical, and therefore is is reasonable to assume that the pixel design of both are the same. If that’s true, we can use the information that Bill has posted about the IQ4 150MP to derive what we might expect in the GFX 100S.

A few words about the Phase One IQ4 100 MP results that Bill obtained. It looks like the sensor has the full-well capacity (FWC) that we’d expect from a modern CMOS sensor. Crunching the numbers on Bill’s photon transfer curve (PTC) page gets us about 3200 electrons per square micrometer  — that’s 3200 e-/um2 in the jargon of sensorati. The Nikon D850, Sony a7RIII, and Sony a7III (all Sony-made sensors) are hanging in right about that number. In addition, the IQ4 100 MP chip employs dual conversion gain, switching to the high-gain mode at ISO 400 and above. This is quite an improvement on the old IMX 161 used in the GFX 50S, the GFX 50R, the Hasselblad X1D, the Hasselblad H6D-50c, and the Pentax 645Z, which all had FWC densities of about 1800 e-/um2. In addition, the Phase One IQ3 100 MP, which used the IMX 211 sensor of the same generation as the IMX 161, had a FWC density of about 2200 e-/um2.

I assumed that the IMX 461 will have the same FWC as the sensor in the IQ4 150 MP, and the same read noise. I plugged those characteristics into a shadow noise simulation program that I wrote — more about that program in a future post — and I’m going to show you some of the results. But first, let’s look at the current GFX 50S and the Nikon D850 using that program.

The vertical axis is the signal to noise ratio of a raw green channel normalized to an 8-inch-high print size using the same normalization that Bill uses in his Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) calculations. The horizontal axis is signal level in stops from full scale. The camera FWC and read noise (RN) data came from Bill’s website, too. The NSR value that Bill uses to calculate PDR is about an SNR of 10, which has a log base two of about 3.3. This simulation gives the GFX 50S a very slight advantage in shadow noise, and says that both cameras have PDRs of a bit over 12 stops. Bill’s PDRs for both cameras are a bit under 12 stops, but he uses all the raw channels for that, which usually gives slightly worse results.  D850 at ISO 100 is substantially worse:

Over the years, there have been questions about the choice of SNR for PDR calculations. Those discussions have merit, but in this particular case, the particular PDR chosen is not important since the curves are more or less parallel.

Now let’s look at what we might expect from the GFX 100S, compared with both the IQ4 150 MP and the GFX 50S:

The GFX 100S is slightly more of an improvement over the GFX 50S than is the IQ4 over the 100S.

Now we’ll look at what happens when the conversion gain is increased.

The new camera should be much better than the old in very dark shadow regions.

The input-referred read noise of the IQ4 150 MP bounces around, and there are some ISOs that should be avoided for best results. It remains to be seen whether that will be true of the GFX 100S. There is reason to think that the read noise of a smaller sensor could be lower than that of a larger one with the same pixel design. Should that be the case, the GFX 100S numbers will look even better in very dark portions of images.

Nikon Z6/7

← Stacked sensors and autofocus Nikon Z6, Z7 FWC and read noise →

Comments

  1. Gerd Peters says

    April 3, 2019 at 1:02 am

    Hello Jim,

    You’re writing something about the IQ4 100 MP above. This is in my view a spelling mistake.
    The IQ4 100 MP has the old IMX211 sensor on board with the trichromatic CFA design.

    Greeting Gerd

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 3, 2019 at 6:24 am

      Thanks. Fixed now.

      Reply
  2. Ilya says

    April 3, 2019 at 2:13 am

    I am confused. You first speak about IQ4 150 MP, then IQ4 100 MP several times, then IQ4 150 MP again. Is 100 MP a typo?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 3, 2019 at 6:25 am

      Thanks. It’s fixed now. All IQ4s are 150s.

      Reply
  3. janne says

    April 3, 2019 at 6:43 am

    the PTC link points to read noise figures and vice versa

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 3, 2019 at 8:41 am

      Thanks. Fixed now. Sorry for the mistake.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifilm GFX 100S Shadow Noise Performance Speculating - Fuji Addict says:
    May 15, 2019 at 10:30 am

    […] Photos to project how well the new Fujifilm GFX100 IMX461 will perform. You can read his analysis here if you want to get into his methodology, but basically, he used the data from the Phase One IQ4 […]

    Reply
  2. Bill Claff’s GFX 100 analyses says:
    June 5, 2019 at 9:08 am

    […] better GFX 100 results at low ISOs. Using the assumption that the pixel designs were the same, I earlier found the same-sized-print shadow noise of the GFX 100 would be closer to that of the IQ4 …. Bill has published photon transfer function curves for all three cameras (here’s the one for […]

    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.