Fuji Can anyone refute that Fuji inflates its ISO numbers?

Here is my take ... I think there is enough differences between cameras/sensors and metering to merit the fluctuations in exposure values. (Granted a full stop is a rather large and significant fluctuation.)

I just saw an exposure/metering test for the XP1, using multi, spot and average metering shooting at a uniformly color, evenly lighted piece of white paper and all three images came out differently, the multi came out lighter, the average darker and the spot was slightly lighter than the average.

Everybody's multi/matrix/evaluative/et al metering will be different or potentially be different because that is where all the secret sauce is added. So you have to compare apples to apples here and not venture out of aver or spot metering. Even then, the Fuji will always be an avocado because of the huge difference in sensors design. Fuji's XTrans sensor has significantly more green pixels than blue or red while a Bayer sensor has an equal number of green, blue and red. Maybe Fuji is making adjustments for all this in when calculating ISO. I don't know. I don't know if an XTrans sensitivity to light is different than a Bayer ... and I don't know if a bias to green should even have a play in determining ISO. ISO could just be ISO regardless of type of sensor. (Does one calculate Sensor to ISO or ISO to Sensor ....?)

I must be older than I think, because ... while I find this interesting, (similar to knowing the capitol of Chad or reading a news story on North Korea), but I sorta don't care as long as my camera (regardless of manufacturer) can deliver a stunning image at ISO 1600 or 3200 ... I'm as happy as a clam in wet sand.

Gary
 
The last few posts (and even my own experience doing the same as Ray, shooting RX1 + X100S side by side this weekend) are reinforcing what I said earlier in the thread:

To me the important question would be how does this translate to real world use; i.e. after choosing an appropriate exposure and post-processing, how do the Fuji files hold up against other cameras' output for noise and overall quality.

The answer seems to be about what I expected; the larger sensor cameras have an advantage and any other differences or advantages over same-generation sensors/cameras are minimal at best. Shooting the Fuji compared against a similarly spec'd camera means similar performance in real world shooting conditions.

At the end of the day I'm with Gary: as long as I can get good low light results of out a camera then I'm happy, and I can get that with any of the cameras I own, which just means we're blessed with a wealth of good choices these days!
 
I must be older than I think, because ... while I find this interesting, (similar to knowing the capitol of Chad or reading a news story on North Korea), but I sorta don't care as long as my camera (regardless of manufacturer) can deliver a stunning image at ISO 1600 or 3200 ... I'm as happy as a clam in wet sand.

Gary

love, love this
 
I must be older than I think, because ... while I find this interesting, (similar to knowing the capitol of Chad or reading a news story on North Korea), but I sorta don't care as long as my camera (regardless of manufacturer) can deliver a stunning image at ISO 1600 or 3200 ... I'm as happy as a clam in wet sand.
I'm pretty much there too, once I own a camera. But when I'm comparing them prior to buying, if one's 3200 is more like another's 1600 I'd find that to be useful information. For me its less about optimum image quality than the ability to push the amount of DOF I can maintain in low light so that I can still zone focus in low light and maintain a reasonable shutter speed. If the image I get is sort of grainy, that's OK, I like that look for the kinds of shooting I'm usually doing in this circumstance. When I'm just doing some sort of static or semi-static shooting in low light, where I can open the lens up and take the time to focus on a subject and shoot it at the slowest shutter speed I can hold steady enough for, well, cameras have been good enough to keep me very very happy since at least the X100 and probably before that, although I still found the old 12mp m43 sensors kind of limiting in that regard. But jeez, for that kind of shooting, I can actually do well enough with the LX7 with its f1.4 lens and that camera tops out at about ISO 800 for decent results. But for low light street stuff where I'm trying to maintain MORE depth of field and a decent shutter speed, then the finer points of high ISO start to matter to me. And, for that, in my experience, the Nikon rocks, the X-Pro is workable (very workable with the 14mm lens) and the RX1 has amazing high ISO capabilities but the sensor and actual focal length are too big/long to really work for those specific purposes in low light. But, my goodness are those files pretty at 3200 and even 6400...

-Ray
 
Lately, I've found most/all modern cameras, the latest FF, APS-C, µ4/3 cameras to have wonderful/exceptional IQ easily up to ISO 3200. I no longer use high ISO IQ as a significant factor in choosing a camera. The cameras all so good that it doesn't matter as much. I'm not into splitting hair ... and while a full stop better is more significant than splitting hairs, that stop comes to play at such a remote/extreme shooting environment (at least for me), it no longer is a significant factor in choosing a camera. They're all good. Now, for the first time in my photographic history, I am looking at the photographic experience factor ... Which camera delivers the greatest enjoyment while taking pictures. Today, that camera(s) is Fuji. The XP1 and the X100S are just fun to use and they deliver an image slightly different than anything else.

Gary
 
Lately, I've found most/all modern cameras, the latest FF, APS-C, µ4/3 cameras to have wonderful/exceptional IQ easily up to ISO 3200. I no longer use high ISO IQ as a significant factor in choosing a camera. The cameras all so good that it doesn't matter as much.

Same here, Gary. I like pixel peeping the differences as a separate hobby distinct from photography, but it has pretty much no bearing on my camera choices anymore. My little E-PM2 is over the image quality threshold for me. My M9 falls short of all of these cameras when it comes to high ISO, and it's good enough too.
 
The age old question of when is good enough, good enough. Well, for you and me, it's here and now. lol

It's ALWAYS been good enough! When I was shooting with Plus X at ASA 125 with my fully manual K1000 trying to shoot high school football at night, I never spent any time thinking about what it couldn't do, just how to get it to do what I needed it to. But that doesn't keep it from continuing to get better and I / we keep finding new uses for the better. When it will be sooooo good that I won't have any currently imagined use for anything better is when I can shoot with an APS sensor at f5.6 (and I'll take f8 if I can get it) and 1/250 in near darkness. Up to that point, I don't need it, but I'll always take it and put it to use! I can street shoot using zone focus in reasonably low light today in ways I couldn't even think about three years ago. Its WONDERFUL. But I still miss a lot of shots because the low light still too often forces too slow a shutter speed to stop what I'm trying to stop. Am I complaining? HELL no!!! But when its a stop or two better, I'll take it and use it and I'll get more keepers in lower light. And I'll marvel at how good it is then too!

-Ray
 
And that Ray is why I preface my remarks with "... how I shoot and what I shoot...".

Coming from my background, the only thing that mattered was the photograph, The Shot, the Defining Image. Nobody (my peers) really cared about equipment. Only The Shot mattered. It took until now to be re-educated, to fully understand that for the hobbyest, the equipment, how you got The Shot and the The Shot all matters. Even chatting about it with other photographers on international forums, all of it, the whole stinking enchilada, all contributes to the photographic experience. This partially explains why there is a market for Leica. Leica provides a different photographic experience than a Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji. For me, for much of what I shoot and how I shoot, Fuji is a great blend of old and new, of M and 1D. Fuji has fully embraced the future without forgetting the past.

G
 
And that Ray is why I preface my remarks with "... how I shoot and what I shoot...".

Coming from my background, the only thing that mattered was the photograph, The Shot, the Defining Image. Nobody (my peers) really cared about equipment. Only The Shot mattered. It took until now to be re-educated, to fully understand that for the hobbyest, the equipment, how you got The Shot and the The Shot all matters. Even chatting about it with other photographers on international forums, all of it, the whole stinking enchilada, all contributes to the photographic experience. This partially explains why there is a market for Leica. Leica provides a different photographic experience than a Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji. For me, for much of what I shoot and how I shoot, Fuji is a great blend of old and new, of M and 1D. Fuji has fully embraced the future without forgetting the past.

G
On this, I think we're (finally) in COMPLETE agreement! Its the "good enough" concept I was reacting to. Its ALWAYS good enough and it's ALWAYS getting better too. And better will still be better, no matter how good it is already... The caveat being - and this is where it ties into "how I shoot and what I shoot - some kinds of better are more important for some types of shooting than other kinds of better. Which is why I'm happy to skip stuff that's may be waaaaay better if its not better for what I do but I'm all over stuff that looks like it'll be better for what I tend to do.

-Ray
 
"Better" is superior to "good enough".

-G-

PS- Back in 2004/5 when I purchased my first real dSLR (20D), ISO 1600 was not 'good enough'. But it was all I had so I used it. As soon as something came along with better ISO 1600, I grabbed it. I think there's a dif between 'good enough' and "that's all I got". But were basically all on the same page.
 

Very interesting. So if those tests with a gray card are accurate, essentially it's a metering difference not an ISO difference. You can potentially chalk it up to trying to preserve highlights, or simply a less sophisticated matrix metering mechanism than other cameras in that instance.

Not sure how to reconcile that with an example like Amin posted above showing darker exposures from the Fuji at the same manual settings as the Sony and Olympus, though.
 
I'm sure it's been answered here, but against my OM-D, the X-E1 is about 1/3 stop over-rated. (i.e., set both to ISO 800, 1/60s and f/2.0, and you'll get a shot about 1/3 stop brighter on the OM-D). So, it's over stated, but not that much. My OM-D is within 1/6 stop of my Canon 1Ds Mark II, so they're all in the ballpark.

One thing to note is that the Fuji meters a brighter exposure by default, which means that if you're shooting aperture priority or something, it is likely the camera will pick an exposure near 1 full stop 'slower' in shutter speed than the OM-D, but it'll also be 2/3 stop brighter than the resulting OM-D shot, as the OM-D meters darker than the X-E1, but for equal exposures, they're about 1/3 stop off.
 
Very interesting. So if those tests with a gray card are accurate, essentially it's a metering difference not an ISO difference.

The article I linked to shows that metering (that includes ISO, as ISO is one of 3 exposure parameters) are pretty much identical in the camera and the Minolta meter, not only at the camera's base ISO but also at higher numbers. But maybe Minolta is inflating ISO numbers in their meter, too? Or could it be that the other cameras are deflating their ISO numbers? As I said earlier, this stuff often depends on light conditions, so it's good someone tested this in the real world (sun).
 
As I said earlier, this stuff often depends on light conditions, so it's good someone tested this in the real world (sun).

I'm all for testing in different lighting conditions, but outdoor sunlight is no more real world than is my living room.

Not sure how to reconcile that with an example like Amin posted above showing darker exposures from the Fuji at the same manual settings as the Sony and Olympus, though.

Two comments: 1) The Sony and Olympus would presumably be giving even brighter gray values relative to the Minolta meter than the Fuji is giving; 2) language clarification: we're really talking about darker apparent exposures (image brightness) here, not darker exposures (ISO doesn't affect exposure).

What we're seeing here is a result of the fact that manufacturers are not forced to define ISO the same way. Nominal ISO doesn't strictly relate exposure (as determined by scene luminance, f-number, and exposure time) to the brightness of 18% gray in a default JPEG image. See the section under "The ISO 12232:2006 standard" on this page. For example, if a manufacturer elects to base its sensitivity index on the Recommended Exposure Index, they are permitted to make exposure index choices arbitrarily based on their opinion of what makes for a "well exposed" sRGB image at the various sensitivity settings. Here "sensitivity" refers to the whole camera system (sensor, processor, tone curve, etc) rather than just the sensor itself.
 
Most of my images are made outdoors, not in my living room. Okay, I don't even have a living room, so that's a given. ;) But as I mentioned earlier, different light temperature and even white balance will lead to different measurement results. It is also interesting that DPR is measuring ISO accuracy of every camera they review, and then these results are often contradicted by their own studio samples that were taken with this very camera. I guess ISO measurements and studio samples are performed under different light conditions.

As for ISO: That's why Fuji correctly shows DR400% shots as ISO 800, even though the RAW in recorded and amplified as ISO 200.
 
Okay, I don't even have a living room, so that's a given. ;)

Well there we have it :D. My shots were actually in the family room, but that is besides the point. There was a mix of sunlight coming through the window and incandescent light. For those of us who do a lot of indoor people photography, that's as real world as it gets.

If Fuji metering algorithms result in equally bright or brighter pictures relative to other brands, they do so by giving longer exposure times (relative to other brands) because the default sensor "sensitivity" + tone curve results in a darker JPEG (relative to other brands) for a given f-stop, shutter speed, and nominal ISO. At least that's how it is for my Fuji, Sony, and Olympus cameras, and it holds true regardless of incandescent lighting, fluorescent lighting, or 100% sunlight.
 
Back
Top