Jump to content

X-T1 ES vs MS dynamic range

jeanmareaux

By jeanmareaux
in Fuji X-T1 / Fuji X-T10

 Share

Recommended Posts

jeanmareaux Apprentice

jeanmareaux

Posted
Posted

I made a short test of dynamic range is ES and MS, sorry, written in Hungarian but if you click on galleries you can see the comparison.

I might say that forget the e-shutter, but this is not that simple. If you are a landscape, or astro photographer, use a good old mechanical shutter. A new generation of Sony sensors have significant detail from the shadows. But if you photograph people, however, then feel free to use the e-shutter. The nuances of facial skin is not good for the brutal level of post-processing correction, not a coincidence that Fuji DR200 is only going to set up automatic (equivalent to 1 EV plus used).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
jeanmareaux Apprentice

jeanmareaux

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Could you summarize what you found? I can't see the difference and Google Translate is having a hard time with all the technical language ;)

 

Also I'm not clear on the facial skin/post-processing-correction issue you'er talking about. 

 

Little less DR when you shoot with e-shutter... it sees naturally when a lot of post-processing exposure correction. The facial skin example comes from the Fuji DR100-DR200-DR400 methods.  The DR400 (when +2EV PP happens in-body) is too much for portrait/human skin tones so this kind of DR-shadow PP problem is not sso important. But if you shoot landscapes (or stock photography in artificial light) it may be much more important. So use the mechanical shutter in these situations, not only high sensitivity but the native ISO (200) too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jeanmareaux Apprentice

jeanmareaux

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It appears to be a Lightroom issue. There is almost no difference when pushing MS and ES in Iridient Developer. 

 

Oh, and we often use DR400% for portraits. It's part of our workshop schedule.

The Iridient does nit bring good results in post-processing exp. compensation, with or without ES. It makes the shadows greenish just like an old rawprocessing method with an old CCD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
flysurfer Experienced

flysurfer

Posted
Posted

Depends on how you set the TC in Iridient.

 

Greenish shadows were also part of my LR CC tests with ES RAWs pushed +5 EV. It could be corrected by moving the Shadow Tint slider to +5 in the Camera Calibration. 

 

It's an interesting issue, I have already been in contact with the tech guys in Tokyo to understand it better, as it's easy to be mislead by thinking the camera is doing something "wrong" (like using 12 instead of 14 bits in ES), while it may indeed only be how the RAW converter is handling things. So I'm very glad the topic was brought it up, even though the conclusions are off. It's interesting, and I'll keep an eye on this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
flysurfer Experienced

flysurfer

Posted
Posted

I already got some, but as I said, they are only half the story, as there is something going on in different RAW converters. So even though DR is perfectly the same in MS and ES (at least according to Tokyo), users may see differences based on using different RAW converters and pushing them literally over the limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
flysurfer Experienced

flysurfer

Posted
Posted

Didn't notice this difference in my test, X-T10 and X-T1. However, Fuji says that ES uses different shutter speeds than MS (despite what's indicated), so there may be differences. Since ES JPEGs and RAWs tend to be 0.1 EV brighter, that would indicate a longer SS, hence actually better shadow DR for ES shots. Sadly, Fuji did not indicate in which direction the exposures differ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jeanmareaux Apprentice

jeanmareaux

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Didn't notice this difference in my test, X-T10 and X-T1. However, Fuji says that ES uses different shutter speeds than MS (despite what's indicated), so there may be differences. Since ES JPEGs and RAWs tend to be 0.1 EV brighter, that would indicate a longer SS, hence actually better shadow DR for ES shots. Sadly, Fuji did not indicate in which direction the exposures differ.

 

Checked again, there are some difference with LR PP exposure compensation but almost nothing if I process the RAW in the camera. I push up the limits, ISO 800 with DR200, three EV darker and push up in X-T1 3 EV but the results is almost the same. The ES file has a little more color noise but the difference is negligible.

 

So this is a software fault, you're right. I hope the Fuji and Adobe solve this problem together :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...