Cropping in the GFX 100RF and the effects on dynamic range

[Rob de Loe]

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We're taking Jim's thread on a wild tangential ride... but seeing that this lens design question came up, here are the cells from my 35mm lens. It has close to 0 distortion, is extremely sharp, has excellent control over aberrations and allows a lot of shift on a large sensor. Mind you, it's also f/5.6, and completely manual.

This is yet another example of Jim's other thread about engineering design decisions. Schneider had to solve all the problems with glass. Fuji has the opportunity to do it with glass plus software. I expect the "glass only" solution for the 100 RF would be larger and more expensive (and almost nobody would be able to tell the difference in the images).


Front and rear cells from a Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 XL-102 with Fuji GFX battery for scale.

Yeah but that Schneider APO-Digitar also has an considerably larger image circle of 70mm at f5.6 or 90mm at f11 - not just 55mm. So that alone could've allowed for a way smaller and lighter lens.

That raises an interesting question, for which I have no answer due to my own ignorance of lens design.

I have noticed that there's little relationship between the size of the image circle and the size of the lens. It looks to me like you can get to a large angle of view with tiny bits of glass. The actual elements in this one are miniscule; the front housing is that size primarily to allow for a 52mm filter -- not because the front cell is large.


Front side of an APO-Digitar 35/5.6 XL-102. The actual glass is quite tiny in comparison to the size of the housing that contains the elements.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff.

Looking at the lens diagram, I question that. But only time will tell. Actually, if I get my hands on the camera, I will tell.

Is it that enormous rear element that has you thinking this?

 

[Crispy_Bee]

Sure but if they went through all that trouble to design a 'great' lens, why then would that lens require additional (and frankly quite heavy) corrections? I wonder how much difference there is between the IQ of this lens and an adapted Canon 40mm 2.8 STM stopped down to f4.0 with corrections applied.

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We do not know enough about the lens' quality. But as someone who is really interested in this camera I read with great interest how amazed Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel was about the lens quality. I guess that's how we humans are – we emphasize what fits with our expactations ;-)

That's pretty much the opposite of an amazingly good lens. An amazingly good lens requires no correction and those do exist and especially in this forum people are comparing various adapted lenses in order to find those for digital MF.

Why? Because corrections always reduce the image quality and resolution.

Does it though? I mean yes, in theory, it must. But to my mind the only question that matters is, "Are the corrections photographically significant?"

Take my APO-Digitar 35/5.6 as an example. That thing has a wicked amount of light falloff -- so much that it needs an LCC frame, and the process of correcting light falloff with an LCC frame absolutely has negative impacts on the final result.

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff. Is it corrected behind the scenes? I'm willing to bet that Fuji's correction is better than what would be possible with LCC frames.

I think the corrections are significant due to the aforementioned accumulative effect. It's a death by a thousand tiny cuts. You take a 100MP 44x33mm sensor, you add to that a lens that requires considerable corrections for both distortions and vignetting, then you crop it even further to make up for the fixed focal length, increase the ISO because it doesn't have IBIS... yikes.

I don't see how it could be better than LCC or deliver a better result, it has to work with the same issue using the same tool. It's not like the sensor takes a second exposure to blend in and lighten the affected area with 'additional' data. It's just a lens correction profile, so it works with whichever RAW-editor you're using.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Sure but if they went through all that trouble to design a 'great' lens, why then would that lens require additional (and frankly quite heavy) corrections? I wonder how much difference there is between the IQ of this lens and an adapted Canon 40mm 2.8 STM stopped down to f4.0 with corrections applied.

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We do not know enough about the lens' quality. But as someone who is really interested in this camera I read with great interest how amazed Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel was about the lens quality. I guess that's how we humans are – we emphasize what fits with our expactations ;-)

That's pretty much the opposite of an amazingly good lens. An amazingly good lens requires no correction and those do exist and especially in this forum people are comparing various adapted lenses in order to find those for digital MF.

Why? Because corrections always reduce the image quality and resolution.

Does it though? I mean yes, in theory, it must. But to my mind the only question that matters is, "Are the corrections photographically significant?"

Take my APO-Digitar 35/5.6 as an example. That thing has a wicked amount of light falloff -- so much that it needs an LCC frame, and the process of correcting light falloff with an LCC frame absolutely has negative impacts on the final result.

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff. Is it corrected behind the scenes? I'm willing to bet that Fuji's correction is better than what would be possible with LCC frames.

I think the corrections are significant due to the aforementioned accumulative effect. It's a death by a thousand tiny cuts. You take a 100MP 44x33mm sensor, you add to that a lens that requires considerable corrections for both distortions and vignetting, then you crop it even further to make up for the fixed focal length, increase the ISO because it doesn't have IBIS... yikes.

You could be right. When Jim gets his we'll know what's going on behind the scenes.

I don't see how it could be better than LCC or deliver a better result, it has to work with the same issue using the same tool. It's not like the sensor takes a second exposure to blend in and lighten the affected area with 'additional' data. It's just a lens correction profile, so it works with whichever RAW-editor you're using.

The LCC process is brutal, at least in LR. It messes with colours, adds noise (which is expected so not the fault of LR) and can be too blunt in the transition zone. Some people are getting much better results using gradients in LR than LCC frames. It's not much better in other software from what I can tell. I use LCC because it gets the job done and I can fix the issues.

The reason I think Fuji can do better is it controls the entire chain. I've seen this before, e.g., my GFX 50R had wicked amounts of moire as we all know. It didn't matter which tool I used, I couldn't tidy it up better than Fuji's own JPEG engine (in camera or using X RAW Studio). It wasn't close.

 

[Crispy_Bee]

Sure but if they went through all that trouble to design a 'great' lens, why then would that lens require additional (and frankly quite heavy) corrections? I wonder how much difference there is between the IQ of this lens and an adapted Canon 40mm 2.8 STM stopped down to f4.0 with corrections applied.

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We do not know enough about the lens' quality. But as someone who is really interested in this camera I read with great interest how amazed Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel was about the lens quality. I guess that's how we humans are – we emphasize what fits with our expactations ;-)

That's pretty much the opposite of an amazingly good lens. An amazingly good lens requires no correction and those do exist and especially in this forum people are comparing various adapted lenses in order to find those for digital MF.

Why? Because corrections always reduce the image quality and resolution.

Does it though? I mean yes, in theory, it must. But to my mind the only question that matters is, "Are the corrections photographically significant?"

Take my APO-Digitar 35/5.6 as an example. That thing has a wicked amount of light falloff -- so much that it needs an LCC frame, and the process of correcting light falloff with an LCC frame absolutely has negative impacts on the final result.

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff. Is it corrected behind the scenes? I'm willing to bet that Fuji's correction is better than what would be possible with LCC frames.

I think the corrections are significant due to the aforementioned accumulative effect. It's a death by a thousand tiny cuts. You take a 100MP 44x33mm sensor, you add to that a lens that requires considerable corrections for both distortions and vignetting, then you crop it even further to make up for the fixed focal length, increase the ISO because it doesn't have IBIS... yikes.

You could be right. When Jim gets his we'll know what's going on behind the scenes.

Yeah that'll be very interesting!

I don't see how it could be better than LCC or deliver a better result, it has to work with the same issue using the same tool. It's not like the sensor takes a second exposure to blend in and lighten the affected area with 'additional' data. It's just a lens correction profile, so it works with whichever RAW-editor you're using.

The LCC process is brutal, at least in LR. It messes with colours, adds noise (which is expected so not the fault of LR) and can be too blunt in the transition zone. Some people are getting much better results using gradients in LR than LCC frames. It's not much better in other software from what I can tell. I use LCC because it gets the job done and I can fix the issues.

The reason I think Fuji can do better is it controls the entire chain. I've seen this before, e.g., my GFX 50R had wicked amounts of moire as we all know. It didn't matter which tool I used, I couldn't tidy it up better than Fuji's own JPEG engine (in camera or using X RAW Studio). It wasn't close.

LCC in Lightroom? Huh... I only used LCC in CaptureOne, where you can adjust the parameters you want to correct and it works extremely well. That was a great and pretty much required tool on the PhaseOne backs in order to remove unwanted color cast and it also allowed for dust removal (which was pretty much mandatory on those backs..good old dust-magnets).

It also reduced some of the tiling... I wonder whether it could also reduce PDAF banding, might be worth a try.

 

[Rob de Loe]

LCC in Lightroom? Huh... I only used LCC in CaptureOne, where you can adjust the parameters you want to correct and it works extremely well. That was a great and pretty much required tool on the PhaseOne backs in order to remove unwanted color cast and it also allowed for dust removal (which was pretty much mandatory on those backs..good old dust-magnets).

It also reduced some of the tiling... I wonder whether it could also reduce PDAF banding, might be worth a try.

Everyone who uses LCC with C1 says it's great. In LR, it is not done very professionally. It gets the job done, but they're clearly not committed.

LCC processing in Phocus has not been able to get rid of the lines that Hasselblad CFV 100C leaves in the files when shifting wide angle symmetrical lenses. It's too bad because that would have been an easy fix.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

That looks like what I had in my head. Except for a bit higher DR to begin with (full image at base ISO).

Stan

 

[SrMi]

Fuji is recommending cropping as a method to ameliorate the limitations of a fixed lens in the GFX 100RF. That will affect dynamic range. I've calculated that, using BIll Claff's Photographic Dynamic Range measurements from the GFX 100S II.

Here it is:



The vertical axis is PDR in stops. The horizontal axis is ISO setting. The equivalent focal length for a 33x44mm sensor is shown for each line.

I will be happy to take questions and comments in this thread.

I would expect 70mm (2x from 35mm) to "cost" two stops of PDR instead of only one. When we compare FF with m43 PDRs (2x difference), we see a difference of two stops of PDR.

Where is my thinking wrong?

 

[SrMi]

Sure but if they went through all that trouble to design a 'great' lens, why then would that lens require additional (and frankly quite heavy) corrections? I wonder how much difference there is between the IQ of this lens and an adapted Canon 40mm 2.8 STM stopped down to f4.0 with corrections applied.

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We do not know enough about the lens' quality. But as someone who is really interested in this camera I read with great interest how amazed Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel was about the lens quality. I guess that's how we humans are – we emphasize what fits with our expactations ;-)

That's pretty much the opposite of an amazingly good lens. An amazingly good lens requires no correction and those do exist and especially in this forum people are comparing various adapted lenses in order to find those for digital MF.

Why? Because corrections always reduce the image quality and resolution.

Does it though? I mean yes, in theory, it must. But to my mind the only question that matters is, "Are the corrections photographically significant?"

Take my APO-Digitar 35/5.6 as an example. That thing has a wicked amount of light falloff -- so much that it needs an LCC frame, and the process of correcting light falloff with an LCC frame absolutely has negative impacts on the final result.

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff. Is it corrected behind the scenes? I'm willing to bet that Fuji's correction is better than what would be possible with LCC frames.

I think the corrections are significant due to the aforementioned accumulative effect. It's a death by a thousand tiny cuts. You take a 100MP 44x33mm sensor, you add to that a lens that requires considerable corrections for both distortions and vignetting, then you crop it even further to make up for the fixed focal length, increase the ISO because it doesn't have IBIS... yikes.

You could be right. When Jim gets his we'll know what's going on behind the scenes.

Yeah that'll be very interesting!

I don't see how it could be better than LCC or deliver a better result, it has to work with the same issue using the same tool. It's not like the sensor takes a second exposure to blend in and lighten the affected area with 'additional' data. It's just a lens correction profile, so it works with whichever RAW-editor you're using.

The LCC process is brutal, at least in LR. It messes with colours, adds noise (which is expected so not the fault of LR) and can be too blunt in the transition zone. Some people are getting much better results using gradients in LR than LCC frames. It's not much better in other software from what I can tell. I use LCC because it gets the job done and I can fix the issues.

The reason I think Fuji can do better is it controls the entire chain. I've seen this before, e.g., my GFX 50R had wicked amounts of moire as we all know. It didn't matter which tool I used, I couldn't tidy it up better than Fuji's own JPEG engine (in camera or using X RAW Studio). It wasn't close.

LCC in Lightroom? Huh... I only used LCC in CaptureOne, where you can adjust the parameters you want to correct and it works extremely well.

C1's LCC is much more powerful but, alas, does not work with all cameras. LrC's LCC is simpler and quicker.

That was a great and pretty much required tool on the PhaseOne backs in order to remove unwanted color cast and it also allowed for dust removal (which was pretty much mandatory on those backs..good old dust-magnets).

It also reduced some of the tiling... I wonder whether it could also reduce PDAF banding, might be worth a try.

 

[Crispy_Bee]

Sure but if they went through all that trouble to design a 'great' lens, why then would that lens require additional (and frankly quite heavy) corrections? I wonder how much difference there is between the IQ of this lens and an adapted Canon 40mm 2.8 STM stopped down to f4.0 with corrections applied.

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We do not know enough about the lens' quality. But as someone who is really interested in this camera I read with great interest how amazed Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel was about the lens quality. I guess that's how we humans are – we emphasize what fits with our expactations ;-)

That's pretty much the opposite of an amazingly good lens. An amazingly good lens requires no correction and those do exist and especially in this forum people are comparing various adapted lenses in order to find those for digital MF.

Why? Because corrections always reduce the image quality and resolution.

Does it though? I mean yes, in theory, it must. But to my mind the only question that matters is, "Are the corrections photographically significant?"

Take my APO-Digitar 35/5.6 as an example. That thing has a wicked amount of light falloff -- so much that it needs an LCC frame, and the process of correcting light falloff with an LCC frame absolutely has negative impacts on the final result.

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff. Is it corrected behind the scenes? I'm willing to bet that Fuji's correction is better than what would be possible with LCC frames.

I think the corrections are significant due to the aforementioned accumulative effect. It's a death by a thousand tiny cuts. You take a 100MP 44x33mm sensor, you add to that a lens that requires considerable corrections for both distortions and vignetting, then you crop it even further to make up for the fixed focal length, increase the ISO because it doesn't have IBIS... yikes.

You could be right. When Jim gets his we'll know what's going on behind the scenes.

Yeah that'll be very interesting!

I don't see how it could be better than LCC or deliver a better result, it has to work with the same issue using the same tool. It's not like the sensor takes a second exposure to blend in and lighten the affected area with 'additional' data. It's just a lens correction profile, so it works with whichever RAW-editor you're using.

The LCC process is brutal, at least in LR. It messes with colours, adds noise (which is expected so not the fault of LR) and can be too blunt in the transition zone. Some people are getting much better results using gradients in LR than LCC frames. It's not much better in other software from what I can tell. I use LCC because it gets the job done and I can fix the issues.

The reason I think Fuji can do better is it controls the entire chain. I've seen this before, e.g., my GFX 50R had wicked amounts of moire as we all know. It didn't matter which tool I used, I couldn't tidy it up better than Fuji's own JPEG engine (in camera or using X RAW Studio). It wasn't close.

LCC in Lightroom? Huh... I only used LCC in CaptureOne, where you can adjust the parameters you want to correct and it works extremely well.

C1's LCC is much more powerful but, alas, does not work with all cameras. LrC's LCC is simpler and quicker.

Really? That's a surprise, which cameras does it not work with? :O (Sorry for derailing the thread)

That was a great and pretty much required tool on the PhaseOne backs in order to remove unwanted color cast and it also allowed for dust removal (which was pretty much mandatory on those backs..good old dust-magnets).

It also reduced some of the tiling... I wonder whether it could also reduce PDAF banding, might be worth a try.

 

[SrMi]

Sure but if they went through all that trouble to design a 'great' lens, why then would that lens require additional (and frankly quite heavy) corrections? I wonder how much difference there is between the IQ of this lens and an adapted Canon 40mm 2.8 STM stopped down to f4.0 with corrections applied.

If the lens designers would have the goal to build a lens that has 0 distortion without digital correction – that would narrow down their options on other parameters. Modern lenses are amazingly good. As far as I understand they exatly are BECAUSE they rely on digital correction of distortion.

We do not know enough about the lens' quality. But as someone who is really interested in this camera I read with great interest how amazed Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel was about the lens quality. I guess that's how we humans are – we emphasize what fits with our expactations ;-)

That's pretty much the opposite of an amazingly good lens. An amazingly good lens requires no correction and those do exist and especially in this forum people are comparing various adapted lenses in order to find those for digital MF.

Why? Because corrections always reduce the image quality and resolution.

Does it though? I mean yes, in theory, it must. But to my mind the only question that matters is, "Are the corrections photographically significant?"

Take my APO-Digitar 35/5.6 as an example. That thing has a wicked amount of light falloff -- so much that it needs an LCC frame, and the process of correcting light falloff with an LCC frame absolutely has negative impacts on the final result.

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff. Is it corrected behind the scenes? I'm willing to bet that Fuji's correction is better than what would be possible with LCC frames.

I think the corrections are significant due to the aforementioned accumulative effect. It's a death by a thousand tiny cuts. You take a 100MP 44x33mm sensor, you add to that a lens that requires considerable corrections for both distortions and vignetting, then you crop it even further to make up for the fixed focal length, increase the ISO because it doesn't have IBIS... yikes.

You could be right. When Jim gets his we'll know what's going on behind the scenes.

Yeah that'll be very interesting!

I don't see how it could be better than LCC or deliver a better result, it has to work with the same issue using the same tool. It's not like the sensor takes a second exposure to blend in and lighten the affected area with 'additional' data. It's just a lens correction profile, so it works with whichever RAW-editor you're using.

The LCC process is brutal, at least in LR. It messes with colours, adds noise (which is expected so not the fault of LR) and can be too blunt in the transition zone. Some people are getting much better results using gradients in LR than LCC frames. It's not much better in other software from what I can tell. I use LCC because it gets the job done and I can fix the issues.

The reason I think Fuji can do better is it controls the entire chain. I've seen this before, e.g., my GFX 50R had wicked amounts of moire as we all know. It didn't matter which tool I used, I couldn't tidy it up better than Fuji's own JPEG engine (in camera or using X RAW Studio). It wasn't close.

LCC in Lightroom? Huh... I only used LCC in CaptureOne, where you can adjust the parameters you want to correct and it works extremely well.

C1's LCC is much more powerful but, alas, does not work with all cameras. LrC's LCC is simpler and quicker.

Really? That's a surprise, which cameras does it not work with? :O (Sorry for derailing the thread)

No Hasselblad camera works with C1. The bad blood between Phase One/C1 and Hasselblad causes C1 to reject Hasselblad support.

That was a great and pretty much required tool on the PhaseOne backs in order to remove unwanted color cast and it also allowed for dust removal (which was pretty much mandatory on those backs..good old dust-magnets).

It also reduced some of the tiling... I wonder whether it could also reduce PDAF banding, might be worth a try.

 

[Crispy_Bee]

C1's LCC is much more powerful but, alas, does not work with all cameras. LrC's LCC is simpler and quicker.

Really? That's a surprise, which cameras does it not work with? :O (Sorry for derailing the thread)

No Hasselblad camera works with C1. The bad blood between Phase One/C1 and Hasselblad causes C1 to reject Hasselblad support.

Oh yeah, that.

What you could do is convert it to DNG and change the camera type in the EXIF data. I would simply set it to a GFX equivalent camera type. Though in such cases using custom colour profiles would be a good idea.

 

[SrMi]

C1's LCC is much more powerful but, alas, does not work with all cameras. LrC's LCC is simpler and quicker.

Really? That's a surprise, which cameras does it not work with? :O (Sorry for derailing the thread)

No Hasselblad camera works with C1. The bad blood between Phase One/C1 and Hasselblad causes C1 to reject Hasselblad support.

Oh yeah, that.

What you could do is convert it to DNG and change the camera type in the EXIF data. I would simply set it to a GFX equivalent camera type. Though in such cases using custom colour profiles would be a good idea.

That is not a useful approach. The best is probably to convert to TiFF in Phocus and process TIFF in C1, or process in Adobe.

 

[JimKasson]

Fuji's little 35mm lens likely also has wicked light falloff.

Looking at the lens diagram, I question that. But only time will tell. Actually, if I get my hands on the camera, I will tell.

Is it that enormous rear element that has you thinking this?

That's a big part of that thinking.

 

[JimKasson]

Fuji is recommending cropping as a method to ameliorate the limitations of a fixed lens in the GFX 100RF. That will affect dynamic range. I've calculated that, using BIll Claff's Photographic Dynamic Range measurements from the GFX 100S II.

Here it is:



The vertical axis is PDR in stops. The horizontal axis is ISO setting. The equivalent focal length for a 33x44mm sensor is shown for each line.

I will be happy to take questions and comments in this thread.

I would expect 70mm (2x from 35mm) to "cost" two stops of PDR instead of only one. When we compare FF with m43 PDRs (2x difference), we see a difference of two stops of PDR.

Where is my thinking wrong?

It's possible that I made a mistake. Let me do some checking.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[Ap0ll0n]

Let's not forget there is no other compact that goes from 12+ PDR to whatever reduced number cropped, at that size.

Similarly, a full frame or crop sensor compact would probably have a similar chart but shifted downwards.

This is very useful though as before joining this forum I was under the false impression DR remain intact while cropping and only noise was affected.

--
Apollon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apollonas/

 

[JimKasson]

Fuji is recommending cropping as a method to ameliorate the limitations of a fixed lens in the GFX 100RF. That will affect dynamic range. I've calculated that, using BIll Claff's Photographic Dynamic Range measurements from the GFX 100S II.

Here it is:



The vertical axis is PDR in stops. The horizontal axis is ISO setting. The equivalent focal length for a 33x44mm sensor is shown for each line.

I will be happy to take questions and comments in this thread.

I would expect 70mm (2x from 35mm) to "cost" two stops of PDR instead of only one. When we compare FF with m43 PDRs (2x difference), we see a difference of two stops of PDR.

Where is my thinking wrong?

I now realize that my thinking was simplistic. It's not possible to compute the curves precisely without going back to the photon transfer curves and recalculating from there, which I'm too lazy to do at this point. So I've redone the curves with a heuristic that I derived from Bill's data.

Here's the modified formula:



The heuristic is 1.1. I also added a column for a focal length of 48mm, which gives the FF pixel height, and checked it against BIll's numbers.

I also changed the 60mm line to a 63mm line, to match the Fuji crop selection.

Here's the corrected graph.



I can't justify the heuristic on theoretical grounds, so take this with a grain of NaCl.

To deal with your question about the slopes, the SNR slope in read noise limited regions is different than that in the photon noise limited regions. PDR is affected by both kinds of noise.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[JimKasson]

Let's not forget there is no other compact that goes from 12+ PDR to whatever reduced number cropped, at that size.

Similarly, a full frame or crop sensor compact would probably have a similar chart but shifted downwards.

This is very useful though as before joining this forum I was under the false impression DR remain intact while cropping and only noise was affected.

DR and noise are two sides of the same coin.

 

[The Hat]

X-T2 it's quite old now.

X-h2 it's 10.74 at it's best, still lower than the RF at any focal length at 100iso, as expected thatsithe advantage xoming from a MF camera, obviously ...but...

X-h2 it's an interchangeable lens camera, and you can mount really fast AF lenses.

I personally own 3 f/1.2 lenses (viltrox 27, Fujifilm 56wr, viltrox 75mm) capables of collecting 3 and half stop more light compared to the f/4 lens on the RF, and in modest light or if a fast shutter speed is needed, you are pushing the RD have to 1250 iso, and looking at that graph the RF can record from 8.7 to 9.9, depending on the crop, so lower thant the X-H2 ...

 

[The Hat]

Yes, at base ISO..

Now add the sliw lens and the missing IBIS, and in the real world you will crank up the ISO quite often