X-T2 High ISO Performance vs Canon 6D

I used to own the 6D and really liked the high ISO, so I kind of use that as a benchmark. I was looking through some old 6D photos, and also checked out the studio comparison tool here.

I was comparing it to the X-T2, and it seems like high ISO performance is not linear. I feel like basically the X-T2 is equal to the 6D until ISO 12,800, and then performance for the X-T2 seems to degrade quite a bit at 25,600. For the 6D, this seems to happen at 51,200.

This kind of reflects my ownership experience of the 6D. I could use the 25,600 in a pinch and get useable results, but 51,200 was a lost cause.

That being said, the only time I never needed to use 25,600 on the 6D was rare and when I had nothing faster than f/2. With Fuji's f/1.4 primes, I doubt I'll ever need to go beyond 12,800.

So bottom line, I'm actually quite impressed, at it seems like to my eyes the X-T2's APS-C sensor equals a full frame sensor's high ISO performance up to 12,800.

Any current former owners of 6D, XT2 could comment about real-life experiences?

ISO is not very meaningful across brands. One needs to take images as identical exposures (aperture and shutter) and adjust ISO and digital exposure to get identical histograms. Only then the noise may be properly compared.

Since read noise is diminishing, most noise will be photon shot noise, which is directly related to the physical aperture and sensor size. Meaning, you will see better performance in larger sensors.

Och Elo said:

I used to own the 6D and really liked the high ISO, so I kind of use that as a benchmark. I was looking through some old 6D photos, and also checked out the studio comparison tool here.

I was comparing it to the X-T2, and it seems like high ISO performance is not linear. I feel like basically the X-T2 is equal to the 6D until ISO 12,800, and then performance for the X-T2 seems to degrade quite a bit at 25,600. For the 6D, this seems to happen at 51,200.

This kind of reflects my ownership experience of the 6D. I could use the 25,600 in a pinch and get useable results, but 51,200 was a lost cause.

That being said, the only time I never needed to use 25,600 on the 6D was rare and when I had nothing faster than f/2. With Fuji's f/1.4 primes, I doubt I'll ever need to go beyond 12,800.

So bottom line, I'm actually quite impressed, at it seems like to my eyes the X-T2's APS-C sensor equals a full frame sensor's high ISO performance up to 12,800.

Any current former owners of 6D, XT2 could comment about real-life experiences?

Click to expand...

I own both 6D and X-T2. I found that 6D performance at higher ISO is similar to X-T2's performance at lower numbers. I think X-T2 is quite comparable to 6D in its dynamic range. In fact better in dynamic range as can be proven by these charts:


In case of ISO... I think Fuji ISO calibration is on a different scale. Some people say Fuji is cheating. In any case, what it is is ... that you shall see an image with noise that looks similar when shot on X-T2 at say ISO 3200 vs shot at say ISO 6400 on 6D. And yes... 6D can go higher... as high as 12800 and 25600 and those images can be useful depending on the lighting conditions. Fuji images start exhibiting noise quickly as soon as you cross 6400... I have found that up to 6400 they very useful. But on the other hand Fuji's DR is great.. .so many a times I land up under exposing than I need and I am easily able to recover shadows and expose it brighter in post process. That gives me same or better image that I would have gotten with 6D right in the camera. I guess it depends on how you use each system. Each system has its Pros and Cons. For e.g. Canon system with lenses has that weight and size factor that Fuji does not. Its really hard to choose sometimes. I land up choosing 6D plus L glass for Pro shoots and for everything else I always use Fuji. The only genre I have not used Fuji for is Macro where Fuji does not have anything as promising as Canon does ... like 100L (1:1 magnification). Next year we shall see Fuji's 80mm and that will fill the gap.

cybersimba said:

Och Elo said:

I used to own the 6D and really liked the high ISO, so I kind of use that as a benchmark. I was looking through some old 6D photos, and also checked out the studio comparison tool here.

I was comparing it to the X-T2, and it seems like high ISO performance is not linear. I feel like basically the X-T2 is equal to the 6D until ISO 12,800, and then performance for the X-T2 seems to degrade quite a bit at 25,600. For the 6D, this seems to happen at 51,200.

This kind of reflects my ownership experience of the 6D. I could use the 25,600 in a pinch and get useable results, but 51,200 was a lost cause.

That being said, the only time I never needed to use 25,600 on the 6D was rare and when I had nothing faster than f/2. With Fuji's f/1.4 primes, I doubt I'll ever need to go beyond 12,800.

So bottom line, I'm actually quite impressed, at it seems like to my eyes the X-T2's APS-C sensor equals a full frame sensor's high ISO performance up to 12,800.

Any current former owners of 6D, XT2 could comment about real-life experiences?

Click to expand...

I own both 6D and X-T2. I found that 6D performance at higher ISO is similar to X-T2's performance at lower numbers. I think X-T2 is quite comparable to 6D in its dynamic range. In fact better in dynamic range as can be proven by these charts:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

In case of ISO... I think Fuji ISO calibration is on a different scale. Some people say Fuji is cheating.

Click to expand...

A lot more people say Fuji is simply using an ISO calibration method that is slightly different than what most others use. There is no need to pay that much attention to a few outliers. "Canon" and "ISO" doesn't go well together either ;-)

cybersimba said:

In any case, what it is is ... that you shall see an image with noise that looks similar when shot on X-T2 at say ISO 3200 vs shot at say ISO 6400 on 6D.

Click to expand...

Normally, the trend is the other way around: an image taken at nominal ISO800 with the Fuji is comparable to an image taken with nominal ISO400 on another modern APS-C camera. If a Fuji ISO3200 image is comparable to an ISO6400 image from a 6D, that would in fact be entirely consistent, because there is about a 1EV difference between APS-C and FF.

cybersimba said:

And yes... 6D can go higher... as high as 12800 and 25600 and those images can be useful depending on the lighting conditions. Fuji images start exhibiting noise quickly as soon as you cross 6400...

Click to expand...

Again, APS-C vs FF.

cybersimba said:

I have found that up to 6400 they very useful. But on the other hand Fuji's DR is great.. .so many a times I land up under exposing than I need and I am easily able to recover shadows and expose it brighter in post process. That gives me same or better image that I would have gotten with 6D right in the camera. I guess it depends on how you use each system. Each system has its Pros and Cons. For e.g. Canon system with lenses has that weight and size factor that Fuji does not. Its really hard to choose sometimes. I land up choosing 6D plus L glass for Pro shoots and for everything else I always use Fuji. The only genre I have not used Fuji for is Macro where Fuji does not have anything as promising as Canon does ... like 100L (1:1 magnification). Next year we shall see Fuji's 80mm and that will fill the gap.

Click to expand...

I have owned a 6D and I think it is still about 1 stop better than my X Pro-2. So ISO 12.800 on the Canon looks similar to SO 6.400 on the Fuji. So considering that Fuji measures ISO in a different way it is more like 1.5 stops difference.

But Fuji has the better dynamic range though.

nixda said:

cybersimba said:

Och Elo said:

I used to own the 6D and really liked the high ISO, so I kind of use that as a benchmark. I was looking through some old 6D photos, and also checked out the studio comparison tool here.

I was comparing it to the X-T2, and it seems like high ISO performance is not linear. I feel like basically the X-T2 is equal to the 6D until ISO 12,800, and then performance for the X-T2 seems to degrade quite a bit at 25,600. For the 6D, this seems to happen at 51,200.

This kind of reflects my ownership experience of the 6D. I could use the 25,600 in a pinch and get useable results, but 51,200 was a lost cause.

That being said, the only time I never needed to use 25,600 on the 6D was rare and when I had nothing faster than f/2. With Fuji's f/1.4 primes, I doubt I'll ever need to go beyond 12,800.

So bottom line, I'm actually quite impressed, at it seems like to my eyes the X-T2's APS-C sensor equals a full frame sensor's high ISO performance up to 12,800.

Any current former owners of 6D, XT2 could comment about real-life experiences?

Click to expand...

I own both 6D and X-T2. I found that 6D performance at higher ISO is similar to X-T2's performance at lower numbers. I think X-T2 is quite comparable to 6D in its dynamic range. In fact better in dynamic range as can be proven by these charts:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

In case of ISO... I think Fuji ISO calibration is on a different scale. Some people say Fuji is cheating.

Click to expand...

A lot more people say Fuji is simply using an ISO calibration method that is slightly different than what most others use. There is no need to pay that much attention to a few outliers. "Canon" and "ISO" doesn't go well together either ;-)

nixda said:

In any case, what it is is ... that you shall see an image with noise that looks similar when shot on X-T2 at say ISO 3200 vs shot at say ISO 6400 on 6D.

Click to expand...

Normally, the trend is the other way around: an image taken at nominal ISO800 with the Fuji is comparable to an image taken with nominal ISO400 on another modern APS-C camera. If a Fuji ISO3200 image is comparable to an ISO6400 image from a 6D, that would in fact be entirely consistent, because there is about a 1EV difference between APS-C and FF.

nixda said:

And yes... 6D can go higher... as high as 12800 and 25600 and those images can be useful depending on the lighting conditions. Fuji images start exhibiting noise quickly as soon as you cross 6400...

Click to expand...

Again, APS-C vs FF.

nixda said:

I have found that up to 6400 they very useful. But on the other hand Fuji's DR is great.. .so many a times I land up under exposing than I need and I am easily able to recover shadows and expose it brighter in post process. That gives me same or better image that I would have gotten with 6D right in the camera. I guess it depends on how you use each system. Each system has its Pros and Cons. For e.g. Canon system with lenses has that weight and size factor that Fuji does not. Its really hard to choose sometimes. I land up choosing 6D plus L glass for Pro shoots and for everything else I always use Fuji. The only genre I have not used Fuji for is Macro where Fuji does not have anything as promising as Canon does ... like 100L (1:1 magnification). Next year we shall see Fuji's 80mm and that will fill the gap.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes I did not mean to say "Fuji is cheating". Just wanted to mention that some segment of people feel that way. Yes it can be said either way.. . "calibrating or cheating..." LOL ! Either way I think what matters is if we know or try to know how to use both cameras effectively to their strengths!

I am curious if anyone compared 6D images to bring up shadows and other details. Though I have been very happy with results from X-E2 and X-T2... I have not deliberately tried myself to do the same with Canon cameras. Wondering if Fuji actually excels big time against Canon in that regard (in regard to recovering details due to higher DR)

I hae quite a few high ISO images now with my XT2. I am extremely impressed with its low noise at ISO6400.

I know 6D is the best low light Canon performer but I have never owned one.

But I would say XT2 high ISO performance is amazingly good and I would not worry about that aspect of it performance at all. Its class leading.

Greg.

Ive owned a fuji XM1 and XE2. Iso 6400 was impressive for its time. I gave up on the system only because the lens were new and therefore expensive. I only used a nikon AIS 24mm lens w/ an adapter. I was mostly impressed bu how.much I could push the files. I also owned a nikon D600 at the time, I could only see a difference through cropping. I just ordered the Xpro2 and now I own a 3440x1440 monitor. Now years later, Ive been hearing about worm artifacts in raw files?? Is this bs or there is some truth to this? Confised, because, Ive never seen it with the last fujis owned.

trexx said:

Now years later, Ive been hearing about worm artifacts in raw files?? Is this bs or there is some truth to this? Confised, because, Ive never seen it with the last fujis owned.

Click to expand...

Worms are only for those who like to stare between the actual pixels.

Looking at the DPR Image quality comparison tool deserves consideration

i just played a liitle bit wit it with XT2 and 6D

At 25600 ISO Fuji JPEGsare really better with much more details despite the fact that DPR uses ACR raw engine, not the best for that

In RAW there are more artefacts in the Canon than in the Fuji see below :









but aprt these 2 items difference is minimal

Which leads to the fact that the XT2 seems on par with 6D both in terms of resolution and noise at very high ISO

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

trexx said:

Ive owned a fuji XM1 and XE2. Iso 6400 was impressive for its time. I gave up on the system only because the lens were new and therefore expensive. I only used a nikon AIS 24mm lens w/ an adapter. I was mostly impressed bu how.much I could push the files. I also owned a nikon D600 at the time, I could only see a difference through cropping. I just ordered the Xpro2 and now I own a 3440x1440 monitor. Now years later, Ive been hearing about worm artifacts in raw files?? Is this bs or there is some truth to this? Confised, because, Ive never seen it with the last fujis owned.

Click to expand...

Worm effect with Fuji has always been an issue. Its largely dependent on which RAW converter you use. There are quite a few good RAW converters these days. Photoninja, On 1, Iridient X Transformer, RAW Therapee, ACDsee 10. Adobe Lightroom is one of the worst but it mainly is an issue with foliage type images not other types and only if you push the sharpening.

So if you are planning on going Fuji X it will pay to buy one of these RAW converters. There are numerous threads comparing them. Some of these converters are quite new though.

Greg.

Should compare Fuji 25600 to Canon 12800 for a fairer comparison.

I also thing to test the Fuji xt2 ISO, can someone post pictures for compare the Canon 6D and Fuji xt2?

I'm not actually convinced Fuji are significantly different from other manufacturers when it comes to ISO, for reasons I have discussed elsewhere.

However, on DPreview, using the RAW comparison eliminates differences in ISO calibration, so it is correct to compare using the same nominal values.

I compared my 5D3 & X-T2. At same shutter speed, aperture and ISO, fuji raws will be exactly 1 stop darker than canon. Fuji needs rename iso 200 to 100, 400 to 200 etc.