Jump to content

Is it just me or the lowish light files are too noisy?


synthesaur

Recommended Posts

Is there any other aps-c mirrorless better in low light than the X-T2?i've managed to shot many keepers from ISO 8000 to 12800 .

 

Also , are there any users having issues with Auto Iso and Minimum Shutter Speed?It seems that the camera ignores it (minimum shutter speed) many times in good light situations and shoots at ISO 500 or 800 which are noisier than the X-T1's same isos

Edited by Vasilis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just registered on this forum to give my thoughts on this. Well not really my thoughts but my evidence. 

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt1&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_3=nikon_d5500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.345942857142857&y=-0.08956372968349002

 

On that page you can clearly see the X-T2 has a similar amount of noise to the X-T1, maybe a little better, whilst presenting a good deal more detail.

 

I previously had the Sony a6300 which I was OK with shooting at ISO 12800. So it surprises me that the X-T2 is actually even better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to take the DP review comparison tool with several grains of salt. For one thing, the JPEG images are not camera JPEGs, but JPEGs generated by ACR. The subject of this thread is SOOC JPEGs...

OP didn't specify if he was talking about RAWs or JPG's. Also dpreview's comparison tool gives jpegs from SOOC as well as raw processed by ACR (like you said). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since i bought the XT2 something has been bugging me. I find that the files even at iso 400 are pretty noisy. My old Xt1 even at higher iso produced very clean images.

Also the JPEGs are just too "plastic" looking, too smoothed or something. I used to love classic chrome on xt1 but I cant stand it on xt2 now.

Sometimes the shadows are too dark....image looks cartoonish.  Can't figure it out. 

 

 

OP didn't specify if he was talking about RAWs or JPG's. Also dpreview's comparison tool gives jpegs from SOOC as well as raw processed by ACR (like you said). 

 

Perhaps you should re-read the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

The blind folded yaysayers can ignore the problem all they like. After owning the XT-1, XPro-2, XEs and the XT-2, I can assure you that the XT-2 files are noisy even at relatively low ISO and I am no pixel peeper! I recently did some street work at around 800 ISO and in a nutshell the results are terrible - especially when it comes to the skin tone / noise issue. Oh, and I only shoot raw with all in camera settings zero'd out ie noise etc.

 

I don't understand why things like this become just defensive and divisive topics. Some of us the issue and other don't. Guess what, there's a potential problem, let's get it fixed and over with - sounds simple and easy to me!

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

The jpegs from the xt2 are just horrid as if taken with a cell phone. Flat and cartoonish.. Classic chrome is lifeless compared to xt1's.

Here is classic chrome @ 1600 SOOC XT1 shot:

 

(images removed)

 

That's pretty clearly camera shake on your X-T2 shots, not noise. Happens to the best of us.

 

My experience with the X-T2 has been that it is very impressive in low light compared to my Canon 6D. My friend shoots using an X-Pro1, and the low light performance on his images seems very similar.

 

X-T2 RAW files can be a little harder to work with than your typical camera, certainly more finnicky than my 6D was, and it is easy to unintentionally introduce noise while sharpening, which I'm guessing is some of what is happening here. I can't speak to whether the X-T2's RAW files are more or less finicky than the X-T1's RAW files are. But even using Lightroom it is a great sensor in all light.

 

edit: One other note-- I believe I remember reading that the X-T2/X-Pro2 exposes brighter per ISO stop than past Fuji X-System cameras. This might lead to more noise for the same settings because you're not really shooting the same exposure. Try setting your exposure knob -1 stop, or if you're shooting fully manual, aim for a stop lower than middle. This could also lead one to shoot at a slower shutter speed to compensate, which might lead to slightly blurry (not noisy) photos.

Edited by copy paper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

The blind folded yaysayers can ignore the problem all they like. After owning the XT-1, XPro-2, XEs and the XT-2, I can assure you that the XT-2 files are noisy even at relatively low ISO and I am no pixel peeper! I recently did some street work at around 800 ISO and in a nutshell the results are terrible - especially when it comes to the skin tone / noise issue. Oh, and I only shoot raw with all in camera settings zero'd out ie noise etc.

 

I don't understand why things like this become just defensive and divisive topics. Some of us the issue and other don't. Guess what, there's a potential problem, let's get it fixed and over with - sounds simple and easy to me!

 

Cheers,

 

Why would you mention the in-camera settings if you shoot raw?

 

There's no problem and the X-T2 is a stellar performer when it comes to high ISO, low light. The 2nd generation X-Trans were also excellent, but the new sensor is better. Here's a comparison between the two. Both cameras shot at ISO 3200, exact same exposure, same lens, same processing. The two cameras auto-focused slightly differently so there's a minor variation in DOF and focus placement.

 

noise_compare.jpg

 

And here's the entire image both cameras resampled to the same 3000 pixel height. First the X-T2:

 

x-t2_3200.jpg

 

And then the X-E2:

 

x-e2_3200.jpg

 

No way is the new 3rd gen. X-Trans sensor noisy or nosier than it's predecessor. Noise at high ISO with the X-T2 is best in class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people keep posting well exposed images instead of "lowish light files"

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt1&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_3=nikon_d5500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.4726285714285715&y=0.6161676646706589

 

Same dpreview post, but moved to an area of the image that is "lowish light" and those blacks are clearly noisier.

 

 

Of course, we're not really looking at the pure raw and instead seeing some demosaiced version which likewise introduces degrees of noise-filtering and various distortions. Since the algorithm used to demosaic likewise contributes to how the noise is interpreted as color information; well... it's hard to call it equal comparisons, is it? 

 

 

I'd also like to add in that getting a perfectly grey "noise" layer upon applying the lpf (AA), down sampling, then applying a sharpening layer... well, it is a lossy technique. Professional software does this all behind the scenes and in most cases, you'll be happy with the results; just that it is notable to explain there are compromise being made here, there is no one good method to rule them all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people keep posting well exposed images instead of "lowish light files"

 

 

:huh: Just because you've raised the ISO doesn't mean you don't get a good exposure at that ISO. All photos regardless of ISO should be well exposed for the given ISO.

 

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt1&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_3=nikon_d5500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.4726285714285715&y=0.6161676646706589

 

Same dpreview post, but moved to an area of the image that is "lowish light" and those blacks are clearly noisier.

 

 

Of course, we're not really looking at the pure raw and instead seeing some demosaiced version which likewise introduces degrees of noise-filtering and various distortions. Since the algorithm used to demosaic likewise contributes to how the noise is interpreted as color information; well... it's hard to call it equal comparisons, is it? 

 

Yes, processing software is an integral part of any digital image and the software used and how it's used matters. DPReview runs everything through Adobe by default. I know better.

 

Here's "lowish light" at ISO 6400:

 

lowish_light.jpg

 

And here's the full image at 50%

 

iso_6400_xt2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From members of my camera club who specialize in shooting dance and ballet, they tell me that the Sony 6300 or 6500 is terrific in low light and high ISO. One member switched from Nikon to the Sony and another switched from Canon to the Sony. The Sony 6500 gets glowing reviews for an aps-c sensor.

 

 

Is there any other aps-c mirrorless better in low light than the X-T2?i've managed to shot many keepers from ISO 8000 to 12800 .

 

Also , are there any users having issues with Auto Iso and Minimum Shutter Speed?It seems that the camera ignores it (minimum shutter speed) many times in good light situations and shoots at ISO 500 or 800 which are noisier than the X-T1's same isos

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Seriously. I don't know what people are complaining about. Also, most web-photos are viewed at around 2 Megapixels. The X-T2, even when pixel-peeped, at ISO 6400 looks same as most APSC or even Full frame cameras. When downscaled from 24 to 2 megapixels, it should look great. And it does, based on the photos people posted here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the SOOC Fuji magic seems to have been lost with the new sensor. The camera shop recently did a SOOC JPEG shoot out and were surprised how low Fuji scored and mentioned something about this Sony sensor not having that previous magic. I got the XT2 mainly for video but will admit to being severely underwhelmed with the stills, especially in low light (or even average lit conditions). I also find it renders very flat and poorly for architecture and landscape.. basically just decent for portraits imo.. then again i am new to fuji and come from a full frame background.. maybe with some better prime lens i'd get nicer results but i did have a X100T briefly and much preferred how that sensor (and lens combo) rendered out in general. my 0.2c

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Are the SOOC x-trans 3 images really that bad?

 

New sensor, new processing engine and so on—I expect that those who use the camera as a point&shoot will see some slight difference. No matter the camera, a photographer will tweak it to suit their taste. Those who lack basic skills will blame the camera as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any other aps-c mirrorless better in low light than the X-T2?i've managed to shot many keepers from ISO 8000 to 12800 .

 

Also , are there any users having issues with Auto Iso and Minimum Shutter Speed?It seems that the camera ignores it (minimum shutter speed) many times in good light situations and shoots at ISO 500 or 800 which are noisier than the X-T1's same isos

 

The manual addresses your Auto ISO concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Are the SOOC x-trans 3 images really that bad?

 

 

No, we're talking specific conditions. In perfect light conditions, low-mid ISO they are excellent. It's when light becomes poor and you crank up the ISO is where it falls apart imo. now playing around with shadow, highlight, noise reduction etc settings can have a big impact on your SOOC pics so YMMV but for me it's been very hit&miss whereas i can get way more consistent SOOC pics out of my 5D3 with minimum fuss. I shoot everything manual btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...