The Fujifilm X-H2 High ISO Noise vs the X-T2

I have put together an entirely unscientific comparison of high ISO noise on the Fuji X-H2 vs the much older X-T2.

I'm too early to the party, it's in 360p. Gotta wait for HD processing.

Anyway, while it's informative, if ISO performance is important, then FF is an option. There are plenty of FF cameras that are at the same price as X-H2.
It's not the same in case of FF cameras. If you want to go up your option is medium format which is both a lot more expensive and limiting.

Nebell wrote:

I'm too early to the party, it's in 360p. Gotta wait for HD processing.

Anyway, while it's informative, if ISO performance is important, then FF is an option. There are plenty of FF cameras that are at the same price as X-H2.
It's not the same in case of FF cameras. If you want to go up your option is medium format which is both a lot more expensive and limiting.

It's easy for someone to recommend changing or upgrading cameras, and that might solve the problem, but at a significant expense. Before taking that route, I would recommend that the OP try something like Topaz DeNoise (one of a number of good NR solutions out there). I've had really great results in reducing noise while still retaining fine detail. I would certainly recommend taking that route first rather than simply selling existing gear at a loss and then reinvesting in expensive (and likely more bulky) gear. If that doesn't meet the OP's needs, then selling gear and upgrading always remains as an alternative.

I find all these threads about non-scientific noise comparisons funny. Most of today's cameras, full frame, or crop sensors produce some of the best high-ISO photos. Add the noise reduction software available and IMO noise is a non-issue.

Again, just my opinion.

Thanks for posting the video. I know that comparisons of this type can be more time consuming than one expects, and they are very difficult to make “fare”. That being said, I do have a few concerns:

• If you are correct that the X-T2 is applying noise reduction at higher ISO’s even to raw files, then the comparison loses most of its usefulness at those ISO’s.
• Since the two cameras have different megapixel counts, each pixel in the X-H2 file will necessarily receive less light for a given exposure, and will therefore be noisier even if read noise is as well controlled or better controlled in the new sensor. I’d be more interested, just for comparison purposes, in how the two look if you “trade” the higher resolution in the X-H2 for improved SNR by down-sampling to the same image size. That would seem like a better starting point for this comparison. Instead of the X-H2 files being more detailed and also more noisy, they would have similar detail. What would the noise look like then? Just zooming in farther on the X-T2 files isn’t the same.

Again, thanks for posting this. Always interesting to see how camera performance evolves over generations.

casey1823 wrote:

I find all these threads about non-scientific noise comparisons funny. Most of today's cameras, full frame, or crop sensors produce some of the best high-ISO photos. Add the noise reduction software available and IMO noise is a non-issue.

Again, just my opinion.

DxO PhotoLab 6 Elite Deep Prime takes care of any unwanted noise in the X-H2. Soon DxO will make Deep Prime XD available for Fujifilm cameras and noise elimination will go to a new level.

I use Deep Prime XD on my "1-inch sensor" Sony RX10M4 with really amazing results. I am sure DxO will do the same with X-Trans.

yomimoi wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Nebell wrote:

I'm too early to the party, it's in 360p. Gotta wait for HD processing.

Anyway, while it's informative, if ISO performance is important, then FF is an option. There are plenty of FF cameras that are at the same price as X-H2.
It's not the same in case of FF cameras. If you want to go up your option is medium format which is both a lot more expensive and limiting.

It's easy for someone to recommend changing or upgrading cameras, and that might solve the problem, but at a significant expense. Before taking that route, I would recommend that the OP try something like Topaz DeNoise (one of a number of good NR solutions out there). I've had really great results in reducing noise while still retaining fine detail. I would certainly recommend taking that route first rather than simply selling existing gear at a loss and then reinvesting in expensive (and likely more bulky) gear. If that doesn't meet the OP's needs, then selling gear and upgrading always remains as an alternative.

I tried Topaz Denoise on the 6400 ISO RAW files from the XH2 in the studio comparison scene here and, while it made the image better, I couldn't for the life of me make it look as clean or detailed as the non-processed file from the A7III. If anyone can do it and post the results here and, more importantly, explain how they did it, that'd be awesome.

Maybe I'm not proficient with the denoising tools yet, but I think people are putting too much hope in their ability to make high ISO files from this new sensor much better. From what I've seen so far, anything above ISO 4000-5000 is worse than what the X-T2 produced, let alone the A7III. And these are 5-6 years old sensors. I can't help but think these new sensors are rather disappointing for low-light photography.

If you are seriously expecting a crop format sensor to provide equivalent IQ or noise as compared to a FF sensor, then you’re probably kidding yourself. While well applied NR can be a huge help in cleaning up a noisy image, while retaining decent detail, I would expect the results from a larger sensor to offer a better results… it’s simply a matter of physics. That said, I’ve used Topaz deNoise on some pretty noisy images and have found detail retention and NR to be excellent and more than usable, even for reasonably sized enlargements. However, your own criteria for “good enough” may be vastly different from mine or others.

Thanks for the comments. Personally high ISO noise is not an issue for me as I generally use longer shutter speed and a tripid. However, I had seen comment about people unhappy with Xh2's higher ISO so I thought it would be interesting to compared to an older and lower resolution sensor. Even ignoring the comparison, hopefully it does show potential purchasers what they can expect from higher ISOs on the X-H2

Not my experience at all... But then again the fellow who made the video admits to not having a lot of experience with raw files, and he's using LR alone apparently.

I was a bit concerned initially with the XT-5 that high ISO noise pattern looked unusual and inconsistent (I don't shoot beyond 6400 ISO ever... and try to limit the setting to 3200 when possible). Once I knew how to re-arrange the NR, Threshold and Sharpening settings from default in Capture One, I found DR, detail and even noise was slightly better at high ISO - at least one-third of a stop improvement. From 125 to 500 ISO the difference is stark - probably close to a full stop better than the XT-2.

You do have to work a bit harder to get the best image quality just right with the 40mp sensors, and the ISO variables are somewhat greater shooting raw. For those shooting JPEG only, I'm also finding that the JPEG in-camera processing is far more capable with much less smearing. On the XT-2, even at max -4 NR (least amount possible), images from very good lenses showed softness. The XT-5 is much better - and I can back off the NR to -3 at 6400 and see good detail and proper NR you don't get with the XT-2.

yomimoi wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

If you are seriously expecting a crop format sensor to provide equivalent IQ or noise as compared to a FF sensor, then you’re probably kidding yourself.

I'm not, seriously or jokingly, but I keep reading that here from some people: "negligible difference", "you have to look very closely"... well, no.

While well applied NR can be a huge help in cleaning up a noisy image, while retaining decent detail, I would expect the results from a larger sensor to offer a better results… it’s simply a matter of physics. That said, I’ve used Topaz deNoise on some pretty noisy images and have found detail retention and NR to be excellent and more than usable, even for reasonably sized enlargements. However, your own criteria for “good enough” may be vastly different from mine or others.

I think the X-T2 at ISO 6400 was good enough in many (not all) circumstances. X-H2/X-T5 both look worse to me in every single high ISO sample I've been able to find. And there's not even that much more detail to make up for the increased noise. The only advantage is cropping ability. Not a minor one, but I think most users would have been happier with a better high ISO performance.

Of course in many cases an X-T2 sample is not available for comparison, as in DPR's studio scene, but after 6 years shooting with the X-T2 I think I have a pretty good grasp of its capabilities.

Then again, as you say, others may have vastly different criteria.

As I mentioned, I’ve had plenty of success with NR on my X-H2s using Topaz deNoise.  Detail retention is excellent and the workflow is simple and very straightforward.  I can jump directly from LR into deNoise, then back to LR for any further editing.  If the end result or workflow doesn’t meet your own criteria, then you may have little choice but to move to FF or find another lower noise solution.

Jerry-astro wrote:

Nebell wrote:

I'm too early to the party, it's in 360p. Gotta wait for HD processing.

Anyway, while it's informative, if ISO performance is important, then FF is an option. There are plenty of FF cameras that are at the same price as X-H2.
It's not the same in case of FF cameras. If you want to go up your option is medium format which is both a lot more expensive and limiting.

It's easy for someone to recommend changing or upgrading cameras, and that might solve the problem, but at a significant expense. Before taking that route, I would recommend that the OP try something like Topaz DeNoise (one of a number of good NR solutions out there). I've had really great results in reducing noise while still retaining fine detail. I would certainly recommend taking that route first rather than simply selling existing gear at a loss and then reinvesting in expensive (and likely more bulky) gear. If that doesn't meet the OP's needs, then selling gear and upgrading always remains as an alternative.

If I am going to do available light it will be with my Lecia Q2M.  I would not use an XH2.  After I got my Q2M, I would not even use my Pro3 for available light.  However, up to ISO 1600 to 3200, my wife's XH2 is better than my XPro3 for noise performance.  It is significantly better when I down sample the XH2 file down to the size of the XPro3 in the processed image.  The read noise it todays cameras has practically eliminated by the current state of the art in the CMOS circuits in Sony's chips.  The limiting factor in SNR is shot noise - not read noise.  There are plenty of charts on the Internet that documents this.

While it pains me to admit it - Jerry is absolutely right.    The current smart noise reduction SW be it Topaz or DXO do an incredible job of integrating out noise while maintaining high frequency details.  If I do pick up a XPro4 and I will pick up a version of the latest DXO Pure Raw in case I takes some available light shots in case I want to address noise, although I like my available light shots pretty raw and emotional in which case I might just add grain to the noise.  

One of the issues I see with most of the comparisons is they are apples to oranges. You can't compare a 26 MP at 100% crop on an emissive display with a 100% crop of a 40 MP sensor.  If you do the same scene of the 40 MP sensor is magnified by a factor or 116%.  So there is an enlargement ratio of the 100% crop of the 40 MP over the 26.  That is if the linear length of the 26 MP is 1 unit, the 40 MP is 1.16 units.  In order to make a valid comparison, the 40 MP image should be down sampled to the 26 MP size using a low pass filter.  This of course would not only help eliminate noise it would eliminate the details at spacial frequencies above the capability of the 26 MP sensor to capture.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

It's easy for someone to recommend changing or upgrading cameras, and that might solve the problem, but at a significant expense. Before taking that route, I would recommend that the OP try something like Topaz DeNoise (one of a number of good NR solutions out there). I've had really great results in reducing noise while still retaining fine detail. I would certainly recommend taking that route first rather than simply selling existing gear at a loss and then reinvesting in expensive (and likely more bulky) gear. If that doesn't meet the OP's needs, then selling gear and upgrading always remains as an alternative.

While it pains me to admit it - Jerry is absolutely right.

I may have to get your comment above etched into a plaque.  I can only conclude you’re getting a bit soft, Truman.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Nebell wrote:

I'm too early to the party, it's in 360p. Gotta wait for HD processing.

Anyway, while it's informative, if ISO performance is important, then FF is an option. There are plenty of FF cameras that are at the same price as X-H2.
It's not the same in case of FF cameras. If you want to go up your option is medium format which is both a lot more expensive and limiting.

It's easy for someone to recommend changing or upgrading cameras, and that might solve the problem, but at a significant expense. Before taking that route, I would recommend that the OP try something like Topaz DeNoise (one of a number of good NR solutions out there). I've had really great results in reducing noise while still retaining fine detail. I would certainly recommend taking that route first rather than simply selling existing gear at a loss and then reinvesting in expensive (and likely more bulky) gear. If that doesn't meet the OP's needs, then selling gear and upgrading always remains as an alternative.

While it pains me to admit it - Jerry is absolutely right.

Did you have to say that!!!!!  It's hard enough dealing with him as a co-MOD......now it's going to be impossible!!!! 🤣🤣🤣

BobsYourUncle wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Nebell wrote:

I'm too early to the party, it's in 360p. Gotta wait for HD processing.

Anyway, while it's informative, if ISO performance is important, then FF is an option. There are plenty of FF cameras that are at the same price as X-H2.
It's not the same in case of FF cameras. If you want to go up your option is medium format which is both a lot more expensive and limiting.

It's easy for someone to recommend changing or upgrading cameras, and that might solve the problem, but at a significant expense. Before taking that route, I would recommend that the OP try something like Topaz DeNoise (one of a number of good NR solutions out there). I've had really great results in reducing noise while still retaining fine detail. I would certainly recommend taking that route first rather than simply selling existing gear at a loss and then reinvesting in expensive (and likely more bulky) gear. If that doesn't meet the OP's needs, then selling gear and upgrading always remains as an alternative.

While it pains me to admit it - Jerry is absolutely right.

Did you have to say that!!!!! It's hard enough dealing with him as a co-MOD......now it's going to be impossible!!!! 🤣🤣🤣

… searching for the “Ban the co-Mod button.” It’s gotta be here somewhere…….