• 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 / X2DII / Hasselblad X2D II FWC, RN at ISO 50

Hasselblad X2D II FWC, RN at ISO 50

December 20, 2025 JimK Leave a Comment

Did Hasselblad play any games to get the base ISO on the X2D II to 50? I ran some photon transfer curves to find out.

 

 

I’ll plot both of those on  the same graph and add a horizontal line at Bill Claff’s Photographic Dynamic Range threshold:

Not much difference.

 

It appears that there are no tricks. I ran the sample set up very close to saturation so that we could see if there are any significant departures from linearity near full scale. There are not. The two x’s on the very right of the graphs are the result of what happens when the photon noise makes the signal clip, and that increases the signal to noise ratio. You can ignore that here, but I wanted ot make sure we got the mean signal levels as close to fullscale as I could, and those extra x’s are diagnostic.

Modeled full well capacities and read noise.

Ignore the middle column, unless you’re particularly interested in photon transfere curves. The data for that column was optained by using sime long shutter speeds, and the noise from those skewed the results.

The FWC is areound 55000 electrons at ISO 50. That is abotu a one third stop improvement over the X2D Mark I.

Good show, Hasselblad.

X2DII

← Hasselblad X2DII EDR and read noise vs exposure time Hasselblad XCD 100-35 on X2D II, Siemens star, center →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

January 2026
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Dec    

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

  • CarVac on Hasselblad X2DII shadow noise analysis
  • bruce on Input-Referred Noise in Image Sensors
  • bruce on Input-Referred Noise in Image Sensors
  • JimK on More Than Exposure: Understanding Total Light on the Sensor
  • Crack on More Than Exposure: Understanding Total Light on the Sensor
  • JimK on Hasselblad XCD 100-35 on X2D II, Siemens star, corner
  • Tom on Hasselblad XCD 100-35 on X2D II, Siemens star, corner
  • JimK on Hasselblad XCD 100-35 on X2D II, Siemens star, corner
  • Christer Almqvist on Hasselblad XCD 100-35 on X2D II, Siemens star, corner
  • JimK on Hasselblad XCD 100-35 on X2D II, Siemens star, corner

Archives

Copyright © 2026 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.