Let’s talk about ISO, high ISO. And it’s not about quickly sharing an image and say “Look, the X-Trans sensor is amazing at high ISO“. This is something we already know since 4 years now (X-Pro1).
I’d like to deepen this topic, thanks to an interesting & very useful Fuji X Forum thread started by Scottie: Have to Increase ISO X-T1.
We will talk about:
- the Myth of Fuji cheating with the high ISO values
- Waxy Skin tones at high ISO
- Make smart use of the ISOless sensor and the build-in RAW converter to avoid/mitigate the waxy skin tones problem
- More about the built-in RAW converter – with POLL
So, let’s start:
It all started with FXF member Scottie, who noticed that on his X-T1 “the shutter speed seems much slower than I expect it to be and have to increase the ISO” and that there is a discrepancy compared to his Nikon D3 using approximately same reach of lens and the same aperture.
Ok… I hear you saying: Fuji is Cheating! … Really?
Not really. Flysurfer (aka Rico) explains that:
“ISO is a more or less arbitrary concept (especially for brands like Canon or Nikon that are using the REI standard as opposed to the more “objective” SOS standard).”
Different standards… that’s why there is this discrepancy. No cheating. That said, I’d love all manufacturers to adopt the same standard.
[recommended reads: ISO standards at Wikipedia / Why ISO Isn’t ISO at theonlinephotographer]
But the discussion doesn’t end here.
Inevitably, in the same thread, the FXF community talks about the waxy skin tones problem and also about how you can get more pleasing results using one of the probably most underestimated Fuji features ever: the build in RAW converter. Rico says:
“[with the build-in RAW converter] you can also increase the ISO after the fact. Just push the underexposed image up later in the built-in converter.
Interesting note: The camera will still use the noise reduction of the original ISO, so no skin smoothing as long as the original ISO is okay for you.
You can push up to 3 EV (depending on the camera model), so shooting at ISO 800 even when the shot needs ISO 6400 is still perfectly doable in-camera.”
Now you got it why you should also buy Rico’s book Fuji X-T1: 111 X-pert tips 😉 – 40% discount with code XT1240
You see, by combining the virtues of the ISOless sensor with the one of the build-in RAW converter (or an external RAW converter) you can eliminate/mitigate the waxy skin tones problem at high ISO.
FXF member Merde played a while with the build-in RAW converter and ends up saying:
“I just love in-camera raw editing… Incredible!“
Personally I do use the build-in RAW converter quite a bit. Changing white balance, film simulation, highlights, shadows, sharpening and what not… it all can be done within seconds directly in camera. And not always, but often enough, I can skip the Lightroom/Iridient session in my (rented) apartment, just because I already optimized quickly the image with the build in RAW converter… easy 🙂
Of course it’s perfectly fine if you don’t use it. As always, there is no right or wrong, it’s just a matter of taste & workflow (Note I’m no Pro and my only clients, whom I deliver my images, are the parents of my students). But maybe, just maybe… you should give it a try.
So, and here is the Poll.
You can folllow the Forum discussion here.
[poll id=”135″]
99 Responses
I’ve used it mostly to send files to my phone for fast post and such
Just a point from my side. Doesn’t ISO stand for international standards organisation, and doesn’t this organisation set the standards that one has to follow in order to say ISO.
The ISO adopted the standard used by the ASA (American Standards Association) and some old photographers still refer to a films ISO as the ASA. The other standard of the time was DIN which stood for Deutsche Internationale Norm (excuse the spelling) which was the German Standard. Both the ISO and DIN can still be found on film boxes.
I guess what I am saying is that that there are standards and don’t buy the notion that everyone is following a different standard. Which one (REI or SOS) does the International Standards Organisation say manufacturers should follow?
Yes, but that doesn’t imply what you think it implies:
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index)
Fantastic, thanks!
So what you are saying is, ‘There is no standard’.
There are five standards, not “no” standard. There is a difference. (Whether I agree with that is beside the point, incidentally.)
What it really means is that the manufacturer will use the ISO measurement technique that puts their sensor in the best light
“DIN” did have different meanings over time but „Deutsche Internationale Norm“ was never one of them and does not make any sense.
For that matter, ISO does not technically stand for “International Standards Organization”.
Apologies – it shoulf be Deutsches Institut für Normung
I guess someone should compare Fuji’s digital ISO with its film ASA to see whether they purposely use a different standard now to give the impression of better high ISO performance or whether they have always been using that. I know many people (including me) expose(d) Velvia 50 as ASA 40 so maybe Fuji’s calculation of ISO has always been different. Still, they should adapt it imho.
Concerning the in-camera RAW converter: it’s great to check the noise and detail level of the shadows when purposely underexposing. Also it is one of the main reasons (besides the great 18-55 kit lens) why I advise people to buy Fuji when they don’t want to edit RAWs on the computer. The waxy skin is the main reason for a beginner NOT to buy a Fuji…
I love my Fuji but talking about ISO standards sound to me like a poor excuse. it’s not just compared to Nikon, it is also compared to my Ricoh and My Leica and to all other brands…. ISO standard was made to be equivalent to film ASA, it should be equivalent to what any pro light meter should show. Of course there will always be some deviation and a 1/3 stop will be acceptable but I find it to be about 2/3 to a full stop and this is also the findings of DPR tests.
As for raw conversion, you don’t shoot raw in order to convert it in-camera with limited tools and on a 3 inch screen… Sorry, Fuji should deal with these issues and not look for silly workarounds or use poor excuses.
You could hook it up via the HDMI port to a 30 inch screen. That works great for me.
if you read the definition of REI you will notice, that it has nothing to do with ASA.
Furthermore there is a tolerance of 1/3 each direction – that’s why Canon, Nikon and Leica Cameras also behave differently.
SOS (which not only Fuji, but also Panasonic and Olympus use) is probably at least as good, but the “old guys” went for REI, so there are some inconsistencies.
About the light meter stuff. That one is funny and most of the time it comes from people not using light meters. Since there are many variables, light meter can (and should!) be calibrated to a specific camera and lens. That’s not all: since lenses have different light transmission you have to compensate for that too (you often see values glued onto [or even encored into] a lens – thats the bias that the photographer put there to know how to compensate)
Even if Fuji is not cheating with ISO (but simply using a different standard), this still means that its ISO-performance is not as exceptional as they want us to believe.
I have a BMW M3 with 2500 HP. I know in Europe they say is 480 HP but according Tristan da Cunha standard is 2500. I’m joking but you know what I mean.
Yeah, American SAE HP vs. german DIN PS. About the same with REI and SOS
Thing is: there are 5 different standards for sensor sensitivity in the ISO Norm.
According to the CIPA their manufaturers are allowed to use 2 – REI or SOS. And Nikon and Canon could switch to SOS if they thought it could benefit them
as long as you stay within the standard, there (per definition) is nothing like cheating
As you said (and so did I), all the deviations from all the reasons should not be more than a 1/3 stop. Here we have a full stop difference from all other brands (compared to current models).
That’s mean that even a simple guideline like the sunny 16 rule doesn’t work….
Now it doesn’t really matters in order to get correct exposure as with LCD screens and EVFs you see what you get so in most cases this issue is a non-issue
BUT when shooting in low light, if you have to push the ISO one more stop than you’ll get a noisier image than you would if using a different brand. And if you reach the top limit of the ISO value that you find acceptable and you have to stop down the shutter than you’ll get more blur compared to other brands….
SO the amazing Fuji high ISO performance is NOT that amazing…. in fact, if you take any camera with the Sony 16MP sensor set to let’s say 3200 you’ll find the same performance (shutter and aperture settings) from Fuji when set to 6400.
So all the tests that compare ISO performance is a some kind of a cheat as in most cases they do not take into account the shutter speed or the aperture that complete the exposure and have their own influence on either DOF of motion blur.
Trying to explain it by talking about standards does NOT and should NOT be of any interest to photographers, as a photographer you only care about the performance in the field, knowing that it is a different standard doesn’t help me to deal with motion blur…. The bottom line, if someone is looking for a camera with acceptable image at ISO higher than 3200, he should look into full frame camera and not fall for Fuji’s 6400 ISO performance.
It’s plus 1/3 and minus 1/3 stop, so a 2/3EV tolerance within the same standard (and then again – there are two).
And it’s not Fuji – from the big manufacturers in the CIPA that produce interchangeable cameras, nearly half use SOS.
“Trying to explain it by talking about standards does NOT and should NOT be of any interest to photographers”
The point is: forget the Number ISO gives you, and shoot with what you are comfortable (for me ISO6400 with the Fujis).
I find my Sekonic meter to be about a stop out. I have tried calibrating it, but it is almost as if the variance to too great! What I now do is if I set my Fuji to 400 “iso” I set the meter to 200!
Nice topic. Reminds me of the Poll I was posted on the X Forums about the built-in raw converter, used on an external device with bigger screen (touchscreen) and maybe some new features. With such a RAW solution, I would never touch Camera Raw Software again.
I love the concept of the feature, but the implementation is so awkward. Compare to Pentax and you’ll see what I mean. And with a little work, it could be even better than that. As it is, I used it on my Pentax all the time, but on my new Fujifilm, rarely.
At minimum, there needs to be a preview of settings as you change them, not only when you generate one manually. And, a lot more tunables with greater range.
I’d also really welcome a Crop module (with different selectable aspect ratios). And ability to set white balance using an “eyedropper”. And while I’m wishing, custom presets.
A live preview of your settings in the build-in raw converter would be very helpful, and in my opinion is essential.
Rico talks absolute bollocks, though, and this particular instance is no exception. Anybody who has even the most rudimentary understanding of ISO standards knows this. Hell, anybody who has ever used a light meter knows this. The man has an agenda because he has products to sell and he’s built a reputation off of just making shit up and phrasing it in just enough of a confident-sounding way that the typical lazy bastard reading these things doesn’t think to do their own research or question it.
Never mind that we have had standardised values for light meters for seven decades, even accounting for camera-specific and lens-specific calibration. Never mind that we can data mine Fuji’s file constitution. Never mind that Fuji’s own PR thinks Rico’s information is a joke.
As for raw conversion, big news, shooting raw and converting to another file type after the fact gives you more control over detail, exposure and noise suppression. What a scoop! I, for one, never would have guessed that raw provides more control than shooting straight to .jpg. Who knew?! Stop the presses, shout this one from the rooftops. Tune in tomorrow when Rico will explain why your images are so dark when you leave the lens cap on!
Just shoot me. Bloody amateur hour.
then please, enlighten us
It’s not only about shooting RAW, but about the ISO-less sensor. With Sony’s ISO-less sensor (and therefore also with X-Trans sensor) you can do things you cannot do with Canon’s sensor… becasue Canon’s sensor are not ISOless (or ISO-invariant, like dpreview and LuLa calls it).
In this case it is relevant, because knowing about the virtures of the ISOless sensor, will allow you to mitigate the waxy skin tones problem.
he he.. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning! Loved the rant, but honestly, when you come off as such a negative douche, nobody will take you seriously.. Why not tone it down, stop sounding like an ass and reframe your statements backed up by fact rather then insult…
… or don’t… and keep cultivating and enjoying your online persona as being an angry man at the keyboard.
Man, it’s only a camera and talk about ISO… why get so upset?
Surely, if his writing doesn’t do the job, his images of horses, the flat portraits of young girls and the pictures of his grumpy wife (?) will convince you that he is indeed an X-pert of photography!
Oh, that ISO stuff? I don’t give a sh*t, just go out and shoot, everybody.
Two things: From what I have heard/read, the ISO discrepancy is related to the way Fuji reads the sensor to maximize dynamic range and not just to the scale they use. Still, even if that is true, adopting a more conventional way of labeling these values might be less confusing.
You cannot compare ISO values from different lenses as suggested in the article. They all absorb different amounts of light due to the different amount and type of glass between the subject and the sensor.
An f-stop is a theoretical value that’s only really useful for working with depth of field, not with exposure. If you wanted to compare, you’d have to either use two lenses with the same t-stop (with photographic lenses that can sometimes be difficult to determine since manufacturers don’t specify it) or simply the same exact lens. That’s also the reason why still photographers have to “calibrate” their meters to the lens being used and cinematographers don’t (cline lenses are all labeled in t-stops, which is arguably more useful).
An F-stop is not a “theoretical value,” and it certainly has everything to do with exposure the amount of light passed. An F-stop is a physical constraint on an adjustable aperture.
ISO- the sensitivity to light- is measured at the light sensitive surface- whether film or digital. It is not measured at the lens, or used to compare lenses.
There is just so much misinformation on the internet.
The f-stop does not take into account how much light a lens absorbs and is computed solely based on entrance pupil diameter and focal length. That’s what I mean by “theoretical”. Two different 50 mm f1.2 lenses will almost certainly give you images of different brightness at the same f-stop since they let different amounts of light through. And it also means that you cannot take the readout from light meter (not one built into the camera, which is affected by the lens, a real Sekonic or similar device), set it on a lens that is labeled in f-stops and obtain a technically correct exposure since you would need to compensate for the lens.
Please re-read my post. I am in no way saying or implying that this is in any way related to Fuji’s way of measuring or specifying ISO. I am specifically referring to the methodology used for the test in that forum post that is quoted in the article, which compares the brightness of images shot with different cameras at the same settings with “approximately same reach of lens”. Due to the different lenses absorbing different amounts of light the result of such a comparison is meaningless. For a scientific and meaningful test, the exact same lens would have to be used on both cameras. The results quoted might be skewed in either direction.
That’s all I am saying. I could have made it clearer that I was commenting on two separate issues, sorry if that was a bit confusing.
Reading all the contributions up to when I write/wrote this contribution.
It seems to me there is no standard being used, or perhaps manufacturer who uses a Sony sensor is not using any standard but an arbitrary approximation to a given level of light. As to the comments that independent light meters are incorrect makes me smile, they at least have no image producing element which they need to influence with the amount of light falling on it, as well as which most light meters give you the option for reflect light or incidence light, while the overwhelming number of photographers only ever use reflected light, as used by their camera. As for myself I have a Sekonic meter yet rarely use it today as every image I shoot I know I have the option of exploring the options provided by my computer to make any adjustment I feel represent my interpretation of the image I shot.
In the days of film, yes I used incidence readings quite often.
It is always a mistake to assume that you are clever than your audience
It’s a discussion. Feel free to drop your thoughts, considerations, and knowledge in the comments.
If my penis is long 10 inches or 10 centimeter, for my girlfriend is not “different standard”…
Fuji’s ISO value are lower than other brand, stop. I will return on Nikon for this reason? Never, problem solved.
Come on. The “myth” of Fuji cheating… 1/2 to 1 stop below in real sensitivity compared to almost every brand (especially at high isos) . It’s obviously done one purpose to impress the stupid “reviewers” who just puts one jpeg in front of another when they compare 2 cameras.
“Different standards” but “no cheating”. Everything is fine!
this is the reason for the inconsistency.
It’s not like Volkswagen, that Fuji secretly manipulates software. It’s a standard they use (and not only Fuji). Canon and Nikon went for the REI standard.
I believe every manufactuer should adopt the more objective SOS standard (like Fuji does)… or even the REI. The important thing they should fine ONE standard, because right now there is NO standard.
A good read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index%29
Patrick, don’t you think that Fuji is counting on this differences between the iso values from manufacturers to impress the less skilled users? The most important part is not to put a word on it : “cheating” or “different standards”. Nobody wants to make a class action against Fuji for secret manipulation! It’s just something that people should have in mind when they judge the real ability to take pictures in low light. And it makes the 16 mpx X-trans sensor totally average in this area (I don’t say worse than the others, I say average)
the point is, there is nothing like a “real ISO ability”.
What I can say, is that the great high ISO performance of Fujifilm cameras is recognized by basically all “professional” review sites out there.
Maybe it should be the job of those “professional review sites” to highlight the different ISO standards between manufacturers.
In any case: it’s time to adopt one standard, because as it now, extremely popular camera brands like Canon/Nikon, who actially adopt a less objective standard (REI) are the good guys, while Fuji (and more) adopting the more objective standard (SOS) are seen as swindlers
But none of them is good, and none of them is a swindler. it’s just that ISO is not ISO… see the updated article with 2 links about ISO)
I didn’t say “real ISO ability”, I say “real ability to take pictures in low light”. And I maintain my point regarding the high ISOS performances of X-trans. I had a XE-1 few years ago. There is nothing more than the traditionnal 16mpx from Sony in low light. It has less chrominance noise by defaut but at the same time less punchy colors in high isos.
Basically, adjusting chroma noise on others sensors will lead to at least as good results or better. At the same time, playing with chroma noise reduction with X-trans sensor changes nothing. I think that Fuji high isos have already some in-raw chroma noise reduction. Just my 2 cents.
Oh sorry. Misread the part about the “real ability”
No worries. 😉
was it the nazis at Nirenberg who declared that if a lie was told often enough , it would come to be seen as the truth??
canikon zealots come to mind here their passion is religious , not science based
just sayin, ; )
Ask the question another way: Does interpreting ISO values in this way, a way no one else does, make Fuji look better against the competition, or look worse?
And, is that by coincidence?
It would be great if fuji can develop a PC tethering software, in which the software will allow us to use the power of in-camera raw converter for editing, and export the edited picture to our PC.
Who want a limited and slow in-camera RAW-converter when plug on a full power PC ?
Since the inception of Fuji Rumors people have been asking Fuji for desktop software that uses Fuji’s in-camera conversion tech. It’s kind of like the +/-1 limitation on bracketing that Fuji seems unwilling to modify.
So last night I was photographing a stage performance and came home with about 400 raw (not RAW, it’s not an acronym) photos. So now am I really supposed to post-process them by looking at my camera’s small, tonally inaccurate LCD and pushing tiny buttons, instead of importing them into a computer with a large monitor and a decent interface? Don’t be silly.
Don’t forget to charge 8 batteries !
Weird, I get at least 350 images (give or take) raw+jpeg on one battery, your maths look a bit off to me 🙂
I mean, if you convert all your raw in jpg in-camera, it’ll be looooooong and I bet screen / processing drain the battery fast.
shooting raw plus jpeg mitigates that ….the in camera raw converter is used on a case by case basis as needed to adjust collor color bal exposure film “type” color bal tweak sharpness highlight tone , shadow tone etc
No, you’re not supposed to do use the build in RAW converter. 🙂
I can perfectly understand it’s a matter of needs. That’s why I underlined in the article, that I’m not a PRO, who has to deliver images to clients and therefore sits hours in front of LR for post processing hundreds of images.
For me, for my needs, looking though the X-T1 EVF gives me an
image, large enough, to judge colors, white balance, see the result of
different film simulations etc.
Sometimes I get nice results, so that I do not have to modify it at home.
Not everything that’s normally written in all caps is an acronym. For example, “ISO”. For that matter, “JPG” isn’t either (although “JPEG” is). We write “RAW” rather than “raw” to indicate that we mean a type of file, rather than literally raw data (which it isn’t).
Nice try, but I’m not buying. The International Standards Organization changed its name to the International Organization for Standardization, but “ISO” is still an acronym. JPG is a file-type extension truncated from the name of the file format established by the Joint Photographic Experts Group. And “RAW” isn’t a type of file in the same sense that CR2, NEF, ORF, RAF, and other manufacturer-designated file types are.
On the other hand, the actual word “raw” simply means unprocessed — whether you’re talking about chicken or data — and correctly conveys the essential fact that unlike JPEG or TIFF, these proprietary file types can’t be used in general-purpose software until they’ve been through a specialized conversion process.
“RAW” only got capitalized because poorly informed photo-bloggers wanted to throw jargon around so they’d sound like experts. No reason to try to legitimize that.
I cannot believe that you are belaboring this point. Matthew’s explanation is well said and exactly correct—though you are free to write it however you wish. Also, demosaicing! (Had to throw some jargon it to sound more expertly.)
I say tomato, you say TOMATO…
J.L. Williams…I love your reply, very well said.
Capitalizing the word raw when there is no reason for it is just the internet echo chamber trying to out-technical each other. The other guys wrote it that way and they seemed to know what they’re talking about; I daren’t question it or it might seem like I don’t know as much.
You don’t capitalize SPEED although it can mean lens speed, shutter speed, film speed.
You’ve got an opinion but don’t exclude the possibility that the “poorly informed” may be not that wrong and that your “simple” meaning of “raw” doesn’t apply completely to camera RAW files.
http://www.file-extensions.org/filetype/extension/name/digital-camera-raw-files
Don’t be mistaken y the fact that manufacturers use proprietary versions due to market competition and this is also one of the reasons why Adobe so far failed their attempts to impose the use of DNG.
About your initial post, nobody uses in camera conversion as part of a normal workflow to process volume but, silly or not, it is rather useful to test exposure settings (namely under difficult light conditions) and ability of your files headroom to give you usable results when you’re out shooting.
I was a bit surprised at the low percentage of people using in camera raw processing. For me it’s, by far, one of the best features of my X-Pro1. Admittedly my photography doesn’t demand the as excessive frame counts of others, but on a days street photography I can get through two to three hundred shots, so I t’s not that big a pain to go through most of those “in camera”. For the most part I prefer the results I get in camera to those from Lightroom, but then again I haven’t explored Lightroom fully so that is just be my limited knowledge, mostly I can’t seem to work out how to export Lightroom shots that have the same colour characteristics as the “film” settings of my X-Pro1, but I’ll get there eventually.
I always shoot black and white with a green filter and then post process in camera to see how the other filters might enhance the image.
Yes, “in camera” isn’t really an option for a lot of photographers, but it does have some features that, although not exclusive, are easier to find and understand and immediately implement.
From a days street photographt I’ll probably end up with 80 to 100 shots that I’m really happy with, these are all processed in camera with just a few tweets and contrast adjustments to each one individually in Photoshop.
Not a workflow that would suit many if any other photographers, but I enjoy the process.
bravo, well said
“Photographers have the idea that ISO (whether analog or digital) is a fundamental physical measurement, a way of describing the “photon capture efficiency” of a film or sensor. It’s not. Ultimately, what it’s really about is what exposure will produce the best-looking photograph for a particular subject luminance, according to the collective judgment of viewers. That is a pretty wobbly criterion.”
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html
Patrick, Rico… anyone: So will all of this waxy skin, sub par dynamic
range performance, sub par high ISO performance, etc. be remedied in
the X-Pro2 and X-T2?
sub par dynamic range?
anyway… I just expect one thing from the X-Pro2: that it does everything better than any X-camera on the market today… Am I asking too much ? 😉
Leaked specs do look promising. Can’t wait to see some X-Pro2 images and reviews
I hope they have a broader view on the market than you. With all respect due to the X system this alone will not be a great achievement and comparing XPro2 to the previous X system cameras only will not get them very far. The market has moved quite far ahead since the last X camera came out…
no need for an organic sensor some day then, right? 😉
Is that supposed to be an argument for your fairytale of “sub par Fuji DR performance”?
Shoot raw and forget about waxy skin. sub par dynamic/high iso is bollocks.
Tell that to someone with a 4 year old Canon 5D Mark 111 or someone with 3 1/2 year old Canon 6D at 12500 ISO
In what exact situations do you need ISO 12800 in RAW and can’t help yourself with shutter speed, aperture or flash?
Wherever and whenever you need to keep a low profile and wherever and whenever no flash is allowed in buildings, museums, churches, etc. (Vizcaya in Miami where no flash is allowed indoors there is a good example.) Also movie sets and anywhere else video taping or filming is going on.
You talked about the flash part but excluded the part about using a 1.4/1.2 lens or a lower shutterspeed & pushing ISO 6400 in post.
Besides: due to the nature of the Canon and Fuji sensor, you can just underexpose the Fuji sensor a bit and increase exposure in post. Can’t do that with Canon due to older sensor technology.
Tell that to amateurs who just want beautiful pictures and not the whole annoyance of editing RAWs. Fuji wants to sell cameras to amateurs, right? X-A2, X-M1, X-E2, X-T10? The people wanting to edit RAWs are just a small part of Fuji’s intended market. And all those JPEG shooters deserve some texture in their low-light portraits.
I shoot RAW and edit but I can very well understand why some people shoot JPEG. And currently the waxy skin issue is the only thing making me hesitant to tell an amateur to buy a Fuji camera.
the raw in camera of fuji is a no brainer…iit takes seconds , and allows many cool features …even newbies figure it out the first day of ownership , if they try..or care …for amateurs who dont care there is the i phone.
In camera raw processing still produces waxy skin. To get rid of waxy skin you have to underexpose your photo by several stops, then push it in processing. This is beyond ridiculous.
The windshield of my car gets all dark and opaque on speeds over 60. But it’s OK, not a problem. I can always roll down my window and stick my head out to see ahead.
ISO is just ONE, and its coming from the films. Do you remember films?
DxO is publishing the ISO charts for almost all cameras. Canon, Pentax, Nikon charts fit 100% the ISO scale. Take a look on X100 chart and you’ll see… and this guy you mention is on Fuji payrol so what do you expect? I expect some very scientific explanation why the Fuji chart are different….. 🙂
Saying this I dont try to say that Fuji cameras are bad, contrary my X100 is still alive and makes excelent pictures. Not so convinced on x-trans sensor cameras…
ISO is a measurement of EV equivalence when pushing an image. Since all images are captured in the base camera ISO the only important thing is that the image matches the intended EV equivalence brightness.
I took a look: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Fujifilm-FinePix-X100-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Mark-II___1009_695_1006
And you are right! Canon/Nikon fit perfectly (especially Olympus), while Fuji is off.
Or is it? Just take a look 😉
by denying it you’re only bringing more attention to it, which is perhaps maybe your goal anyway.
fuji changed their ISO standard when they moved to the xtrans CFA. The ISO value on X100 and X10 cameras behaves similarly to Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc., so it becomes possible to compare images captured by various cameras with matched exposure settings across a range of ISO. after the introduction of xtrans, the ISO changed in such a way to benefit same-ISO comparisons across cameras.
the only possible justification for changing the ISO definition in the middle of a product line (x-series cameras had been ‘out’ for a few years), upon introduction of a ‘new technology’ (xtrans), is something one might term as ‘shady’.
check!
Digital cameras ISO values are just references not something you can measure according to a real scale as with film.
That’s the reason manufacturers use their values as “equivalent to ISO x or y” and as there is not a standard but different ways to measure the indicated specs, comparing images according to “matched exposure settings across a range of ISO” of several camera makers may not be a realistic task, as it is not impossible to find differences even among units of the same model and brand.
However, the relative values within the scale of a particular camera shall respect the progression of a real scale. So, you can compute values and determine the curve of your camera and know what kind of deviations to expect, either to use a customized curve if your camera allows it or to use compensation to achieve the desired results due to ISO “values” and/or light meter behavior (you shall not disregard the importance of this “variable”).
No, ISO values are not “just references.” The “S” stands for Standards.
A handheld light meter need inputs such as shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.
For the light falling on a given subject and ISO, that light meter will give you shutter speed/aperture readings that you can manually transfer to a large format view camera, a medium format camera, a 35mm camera. The shutter/aperture settings will be exactly the same for each of them.
Film manufacturers have known this for well over a century, and had tight tolerances to ensure ISO consistency in a film line.
Because we use TTL meters in most cameras today, and because they are so reliable, we trust what they tell us.
But if you took whatever setting your TTL meter tells you in your X-T1 for aperture & shutter, and transfer that to other cameras, you will quickly find whether ISO is standard across all of them.
ISO values are not references but cameras only give you “equivalences” to them not the real thing and that’s the problem.
Maybe that’s a reason why my Sekonic meter came with the charts/targets and software to customize camera curves and use EV values the way you refer.
How timely, Michael Reichmann”s of Luminous Landscape, writes an article sub-titled “Should you underexpose (an adjust in post) or use high ISO”
You can read it here…
https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-a7rii-iso-invariance/
Fuji is competing against ALL the other camera makers not just Nikon and Canon. Lucky for Fuji, Canon and Nikon, to quote Michael, just dribble out camera bodies with new bits of chrome here and there.
thank you dave, how true
I’ve been looking me at XPRO1 JPEGS online. I likey…..
lets hope the new sensor does not develop dying pixels over time. nobody wants a blind camera for so much money 😉
anyway, its a good thing the iso question is being disqussed, so that users can understand their actual hardware in greater depth or those who wanna buy it eventually are not put off by some dark aura of “illusion”, “incompleteness” or outright “fakery” when compared to established brands..
Pardon my ignorance, but do side by side ISO comparisons of 2 cameras that we often see in reviews use exactly the same exposure settings for both cameras (i.e. shutter speed, aperture and of course ISO) ?
If yes and if X-Trans sensor ISO reference is indeed lower by 1/2 to 1 stop as I understand it, shouldn’t the X-Trans images come out darker in these reviews than images shot with an REI standard based sensor, all other things being equal ?
If not, i.e. if at least one variable in the equation other than ISO is free to be changed by the cameras, shouldn’t that show in the image as well, compared to the other image ?
another issue is Reuters…. and others demanding shots submitted only be jpegs in camera without post manipulation….. to combat visual lying or outright fraud apparently …reuters says tweaks are allowed [in camera only it seems ]
Cosinaphile says, my god the poll numbers are pathetic ,, ive been touting the incredible virtue of in camera raw processing T VARIOUS FORUMS SINCE i got my x100 [now i shoot xe2 usually] years ago …it seems the great majority of fuji shooters are blissfully unaware of perhaps the most useful feature the series possesses .
The amount of legitimate manipulation that can be accomplished in camera is astounding , and with use, features like pushing pulling and shooting at skewed exposures deliberately for effect can be discovered , ive been doing the “Rico trick” for years , im glad his book will expose the value of the criminally underused feature …
My fuji cameras attract smiles and interest from folks everywhere , drawn to the polished good looks , solid feel in the hand [ when i allow them to hold it] and the PSAM functions without a PSAM dial [if camera alll worked so logically in the past , why did the manufacturers change things [ which i have no answer to ! ]…..but the single most telling gasp moment for folks seeing fuji ilc for the first time is when I shoot a shot 3 or more stops underexposed deliberately [ which yields a nearly black image ] and then repair the image in a few second with the raw in camera converter [ plus 3 stops and maybe a boost to highlight tone and a lowering of shadow tone ] and they cant believe their eyes.
fuji cameras have reignited my passion for camera as machine , like the olympus ep-1 did all those years ago. shooting street… or having fun at a party
or doing a portrait for a friend are all just better with fuji
just sayin
by the way , still another issue is the news from Reuters. demanding shots submitted be JPEG in camera wo post manipulation….. to combat visual lying or outright fraud apparently ?…reuters says tweaks are allowed [in camera only it seems….. so in this regard the raw fuji in cam converter is a blessing
About that waxy skin tones and bypassing it by underexposing and using in-camera raw conversion:
have you really tried it?
first, I dont want to look at 3 stops underexposed images on my camera display, because i really cant tell if they are good or not that way.
and second, the jpeg engine is really not good at noise reduction. if you take your shot at iso400 and push it 3 stops (with low noise reduction) it looks horrible. you can do much better with proper raw conversion on your pc. so sadly, for now, waxy skin tones are a real problem on all fuji cameras.
Genius reply!
But this is exactly why I left Fuji: I got bored of sticking my head out of the window! And this is for so many of Fuji’s stupid limitations (see bracketing etc.), not only waxy skin!
And when I had Fuji I always had to watch my highlights, they burn like hell…even m4/3 sensors (16mp) are not that bad!
For what it’s worth, with the X-Pro 1, ISO 200 equates to about ISO 160 on Nikon/Canon. I’ve found that when metering for film (incidentally, Fuji’s film – slide film), using the 160 number (assuming all ISOs are 1/3rd stop slower) gives the best results.
I don’t know about with the X-T1, but the X-Pro 1’s raws don’t go past 3200 (or 2500 eq. with Nikon/Canon) the ISO 6400 setting is digitally boosted afterwards and you have to change that manually for raw converters that don’t do it automatically. I assume that, in the end, you get better results that way. Maybe they came to that conclusion in testing – or whoever made the sensor.
I personally don’t mind, and I find I can push the X-Pro1’s raw’s pretty far and still get surprisingly decent results with the raw converter I use, but it is what it is.