 |
| Fujifilm X-T1, 18-55mm lens @ 55mm; 1/125th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 400 (click to enlarge) |
I've wondered for some time about why Fujifilm doesn't offer much higher ISOs natively in their cameras? I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer, so I thought I would throw it out to all of you for your opinion. I'm sure one or more of you know.
We know Fujifilm camera sensors are ISO-less. There are other manufacturer's cameras out there that are as well. We also know that digital noise at any particular ISO seems to be well under control, in fact, Fujifilm cameras have been touted by many as having lower digital noise than comparable cameras with similar sensors at equal ISO settings.
If the X-Trans II sensors are so good and the digital noise generated is lower than Bayer pattern sensors, why wouldn't Fujifilm take advantage of the supposedly lower noise generation and give their users much higher ISOs for raw—and even JPEG, for that matter?
We also generally agree that fewer pixels per square mm are better and generate less noise. Being an APS-C sized sensor with only 16mp, why do other cameras with Bayer pattern sensors and many more pixels have much greater native ISO capabilities? For example:
Camera Sensor Size Pixels Highest Native ISO
Nikon D5500 APS-C 24mp 25,600
Nikon D7100 APS-C 24mp 25,600
Nikon D7200 APS-C 24mp 25,600
Canon 7D MK II APS-C 20mp 16,000
Canon 760 D APS-C 24mp 12,800
Sony A68 APS-C 24mp 25,600
Sony A6000 APS-C 24mp 25,600
Samsung NX500 APS-C 28mp 25,600
Pentax K3 II APS-C 24mp 51,200
Fujifilm X-T1 APS-C 16mp 6,400
Fujifilm X-PRO 2 APS-C 24mp 12,800
You get my point. Even Fujifilm's newest and new flagship camera only has a native ISO of 12,800. (By native, I mean that the ISO is in the standard range, not the expandable range.) I don't understand, if the X-Trans III or II sensors are better and have lower noise at comparable ISOs, why does Fujifilm limit their highest native (or RAW) ISOs so low compared to their competition?
Another observation...
When cameras are introduced, one of most touted features in judging "how great" a new camera is, is the extremely high ISO capabilities. We never hear much from Fujifilm users about their cameras missing those high ISOs. That tells me that Fuji camera users have a different mindset in that, instead of looking for the latest, greatest, highest, most, etc., they may be judging their cameras by the overall pleasing attributes of the images generated by their Fuji cameras and not some largely useless feature that is almost never relevant. Good for you!
Anyone have an idea of why the ISOs are so limited in such a desirable camera?
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2016 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Just a guess: because no one would really like images taken with such high amplification?
ReplyDeleteOn my Olympus E-M10 for instance, I never go over 3200, and prefer to stay well under 1600. Whenever I can I use base ISO which is claimed to be 200, but measured to be just a tad over 100 by DxO:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-versus-Fujifilm-FinePix-X100___1020_937_695
(under Measurements - SNR 18%. Just took the X100 because I didn't see the X-T1 there)
And yes, I know, some people prefer to "get the shot" no matter what. But I found that I don't really like to see these high ISO photos, at least not my own ones. Maybe with a Df or a D4 that would be different...
HTH,
Wolfgang
Some hints in this thread Fuji's ISOless sensor on 'In Discussion in 'Coffee with Rico Pfirstinger, Fuji X-Pert''
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing to the link in the Fuji X-Pert Forum. Rico's explanation allows us to know, technically what is going on, but I don't think it fully answers my question. For example, my Nikon has an ISO-less sensor but the maximum ISO available to me is much greater. So, considering ISO-less sensors to ISO-less sensors, why doesn't Fuji give the option for higher ISOs?
DeleteWould much rather see them have ISO 25 for us to use. TechPan ISO of 3 or 6 would be even more welcome. Digital is still way behnd film in low ISO these days.
ReplyDeleteWould much rather have the options of lower ISO such as 25, or even Tech Pan ratings such as ISO 3 or 6. Would be nice to shoot without having to use neutral density filters.
ReplyDeleteI'm no technical expert, Dennis, but I use the X100T and the XT1, and in essence, even when shooting JPEGs, and certainly when shooting in RAW, I have no problem pushing a Fuji file an extra couple of stops. Even if I'm already shooting at a higher ISO, say 3200, I can easily push it two or even three stops...this seems pretty much the same as telling the camera to shoot at ISO12800 or 25600. One big difference though: Fuji's files start to look waxy at 6400 (when set in camera) so a lot of Fuji users have learned to stay at 3200 and push in post. The files look more grainy, not waxy, and not too noisy to deal with either. I suspect that's why you don't hear Fuji users asking for it: we can get there other ways and prefer not to have the camera do it, with what appears to be too much noise reduction anyway. Just my guess and input.
ReplyDeleteCurt