IR + noise: Fuji X converted vs. Fuji GFX not converted

[Ap0ll0n]

I am deciding whether to keep my (full spectrum) IR converted X-E2 with the Fuji 8mm lens or use my GFX 100S ii with the 20-35mm (and not only) for IR. So I took a test photo today in less than ideal for IR lighting, i.e. not 100% sunny on a summer day, but still probably good enough for comparison purposes. Both cameras with a Hoya 720nm filter.

The GFX 100S ii was shot handheld at 1/4sec twice and I kept the best shot. This is how I plan to shoot it in real life so I wanted the test to be pragmatic, albeit with some (unknown) variation that, if anything, doesn't do the GFX any favors. I plan to repeat when I have more time with a tripod. Somehow during PP, Photoshop or Nik software removes exif so here it is:

Both lenses at f/4, Fuji X at 1/240sec and ISO 200, Fuji GFX at 1/4sec and ISO 800.

I already know the GFX is (imho a lot) sharper but here I cared more about noise. Sure enough, you don't expect the GFX to be more than 2 stops better but more on that towards the end.

I applied my typical PP to make both images at least presentable: select white balance (again, as already done in camera) against the grass -> swap channels in Photoshop -> Nik 7 Silver Effex (high contrast and structure in this case).

I do need to highlight that the Fuji X photo at that stage stood out by a lot more. Part of that may be attributable to different lighting (again, if anything not favoring the GFX but need to repeat). For the GFX one I had to further select the trees and building and increase their exposure (and shadows). And get rid of a bit of hotspot in the middle (can you tell?!).

As a final step, again keeping in mind my use case, I applied my favorite (for my monitor) 2.1:1 crop ratio to both. Now, I know this is not doing the Fuji X any favors, due to lower MP, but again I almost don't care as I am only interested in finding out which one can provide the better output.

So here are the results. The noise is, I believe, noticeably higher on the Fuji X, despite that being shot at a two stops lower ISO! Of course, this is due to both the larger sensor but also due to the last magnification step I applied - I'm sure Erik will chime in here to quantify how much each factor contributes

First of a few tests on a genre of photography I really enjoy.

View attachment 88e924d92e204bd5b040275fa4809097.jpg
Fuji GFX + 20-35




Fuji X-E2 + 8mm

--
Apollon

Apollon+

Explore Apollon+’s 515 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Doppler9000]

I am deciding whether to keep my (full spectrum) IR converted X-E2 with the Fuji 8mm lens or use my GFX 100S ii with the 20-35mm (and not only) for IR. So I took a test photo today in less than ideal for IR lighting, i.e. not 100% sunny on a summer day, but still probably good enough for comparison purposes. Both cameras with a Hoya 720nm filter.

The GFX 100S ii was shot handheld at 1/4sec twice and I kept the best shot. This is how I plan to shoot it in real life so I wanted the test to be pragmatic, albeit with some (unknown) variation that, if anything, doesn't do the GFX any favors. I plan to repeat when I have more time with a tripod. Somehow during PP, Photoshop or Nik software removes exif so here it is:

Both lenses at f/4, Fuji X at 1/240sec and ISO 200, Fuji GFX at 1/4sec and ISO 800.

I already know the GFX is (imho a lot) sharper but here I cared more about noise. Sure enough, you don't expect the GFX to be more than 2 stops better but more on that towards the end.

I applied my typical PP to make both images at least presentable: select white balance (again, as already done in camera) against the grass -> swap channels in Photoshop -> Nik 7 Silver Effex (high contrast and structure in this case).

I do need to highlight that the Fuji X photo at that stage stood out by a lot more. Part of that may be attributable to different lighting (again, if anything not favoring the GFX but need to repeat). For the GFX one I had to further select the trees and building and increase their exposure (and shadows). And get rid of a bit of hotspot in the middle (can you tell?!).

As a final step, again keeping in mind my use case, I applied my favorite (for my monitor) 2.1:1 crop ratio to both. Now, I know this is not doing the Fuji X any favors, due to lower MP, but again I almost don't care as I am only interested in finding out which one can provide the better output.

So here are the results. The noise is, I believe, noticeably higher on the Fuji X, despite that being shot at a two stops lower ISO! Of course, this is due to both the larger sensor but also due to the last magnification step I applied - I'm sure Erik will chime in here to quantify how much each factor contributes

First of a few tests on a genre of photography I really enjoy.

View attachment 88e924d92e204bd5b040275fa4809097.jpg
Fuji GFX + 20-35


Fuji X-E2 + 8mm

Very interesting. The GFX is impressive, given it isn’t converted.

 

[dbateman]

Ultimately only you will be able to decide which to use, the Gfx with longer shutter speeds and a tripod or the full spectrum converted camera. Subject bluring might also be a factor.

But I do find the UV/IR blocker on the Gfx cameras to be quite weak. I converted my 50S to full spectrum. It only can see about to 350nm, not really that deep into UV. I wouldn't recommend converting a gfx camera just for UV photography.

 

[Massinissa]

But I do find the UV/IR blocker on the Gfx cameras to be quite weak. I converted my 50S to full spectrum. It only can see about to 350nm, not really that deep into UV. I wouldn't recommend converting a gfx camera just for UV photography.

On the X system the IR filter of the T5 is weaker compared to the T2.



--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdc74/
https://kuula.co/profile/massinissa

 

[Ap0ll0n]

Ultimately only you will be able to decide which to use, the Gfx with longer shutter speeds and a tripod

No tripod for me unless I'm doing long exposures. From experience, the GFX 100S ii down to 1/4 can do just fine (with some care or a few shots taken to pick the sharpest).

or the full spectrum converted camera. Subject bluring might also be a factor.

Absolutely. Though apart from leaves and water, this genre of photography is really meant for static subjects - i.e. no people, animals, cars or anything that moves, not in close focus anyway where movement may be more apparent.

But I do find the UV/IR blocker on the Gfx cameras to be quite weak. I converted my 50S to full spectrum. It only can see about to 350nm, not really that deep into UV. I wouldn't recommend converting a gfx camera just for UV photography.

Thanks for the insight. I don't think I would ever convert a GFX due to the cost involved of owning a second MF camera.

 

[dbateman]

Ultimately only you will be able to decide which to use, the Gfx with longer shutter speeds and a tripod

No tripod for me unless I'm doing long exposures. From experience, the GFX 100S ii down to 1/4 can do just fine (with some care or a few shots taken to pick the sharpest).

or the full spectrum converted camera. Subject bluring might also be a factor.

Absolutely. Though apart from leaves and water, this genre of photography is really meant for static subjects - i.e. no people, animals, cars or anything that moves, not in close focus anyway where movement may be more apparent.

But I do find the UV/IR blocker on the Gfx cameras to be quite weak. I converted my 50S to full spectrum. It only can see about to 350nm, not really that deep into UV. I wouldn't recommend converting a gfx camera just for UV photography.

Thanks for the insight. I don't think I would ever convert a GFX due to the cost involved of owning a second MF camera.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

Ultimately only you will be able to decide which to use, the Gfx with longer shutter speeds and a tripod

No tripod for me unless I'm doing long exposures. From experience, the GFX 100S ii down to 1/4 can do just fine (with some care or a few shots taken to pick the sharpest).

or the full spectrum converted camera. Subject bluring might also be a factor.

Absolutely. Though apart from leaves and water, this genre of photography is really meant for static subjects - i.e. no people, animals, cars or anything that moves, not in close focus anyway where movement may be more apparent.

But I do find the UV/IR blocker on the Gfx cameras to be quite weak. I converted my 50S to full spectrum. It only can see about to 350nm, not really that deep into UV. I wouldn't recommend converting a gfx camera just for UV photography.

Thanks for the insight. I don't think I would ever convert a GFX due to the cost involved of owning a second MF camera.

You dont need a second camera. Stc sells a clip-in UV/IR blocker filter that works. I own one.

https://www.stcoptics.com/collectio...ilm-gfx-series-cameras?variant=40620156125337

Kolari has pre-order status now for a Gfx clip-in filter that simulates the stock UV/ IR blocker. Called OEM hot mirror:

https://kolarivision.com/product/kolari-magnetic-clip-in-filters-for-fujifilm-g-mount/

Thanks, good to know. I looked for those couple of months ago before I bought my Kase filter collection and Kolari didn't have them. I also had those for my Fuji X-T5 but never used them (now for sale) as I was always super nervous. Definitely not now on a 5k camera. When in the field, last thing you want to do is to expose the sensor every time you want to change a filter but to each their own of course. The IR may make some sense for the price stc is charging but certainly not Kolari's. Also thinking about Kolari's 95mm 720nm plus a Kase diy to turn it into magnetic and combine with their ND filters. Or keep using my existing 82mm 720 and 850 Hoyas.

I am still not sure if a second camera is preferable or not. So far the way the photo comes out of the XE2 has more brightness and contrast than the unconverted GFX with the 720nm Hoya filter. Plus not entirely sure about the 20-35 hotspot - in contrast with the Fuji X 8mm or 14mm which are stellar performers. To be continued!

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

 

[Doppler9000]

Here is a link to some particularly interesting (IMO) IR photo, that required short shutter speeds.

Romo Beach Car Photos

 

[dbateman]

I also bought a Kase set for Gfx as they are just the cheapest. The Kase filters are glued in place and have round edges. Its hard to get them out, so I just broke one ND filter one. The frame will allow me to test Lee filters, which are thin polyester with various dyes. I have other gel filters I may test.

The STC is an actual clip in design. They also provide a screwdriver to carefully remove the glass, which you can replace. The STC frame takes rectangle glass (36mm x 47mm x0.5mm), so possible to order glass for it. I know Tangsinuo, a filter seller whom can do custom orders, but I haven't decided what to order.

The Kolari look like the Kase frames. They might be using something similar. The cost is quite high. I haven't pre-ordered any. But maybe interested in the IR chrome lite filter.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

Here is a link to some particularly interesting (IMO) IR photo, that required short shutter speeds.

Romo Beach Car Photos

Indeed, thank you.

I am actually looking forward to the opposite, long exposure IR. Kind of tough when working 8 to 5 so maybe during the weekend. There is a guy in a GFX Facebook group that keeps posting some amazing LE IR photos.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

If anyone is following this thread, after taking a couple more photos, it becomes clear to me that the non converted Fuji (GFX) just can't get the trees to become as white as the converted one (X-E2) can. The first includes various temperature and editing adjustments (with mask) as well as with different levels of captured exposure (by varying ISO) whereas the second one provides bright white trees and other foliage right off the bat. In fact, in the converted Fuji, the entire photo stands out as if the sun was brighter and with higher contrast.

So unless anyone can provide any other trick on how to turn the foliage in the GFX as white and bright as the one in the X-E2, I think I will be sticking with the converted X-E2 - and probably buying back the Fuji 14mm for the 3rd time in the past 10 years.

Below are the two examples shot, within seconds of each other (various other similar shots have results in similar outcomes). The X-E2 was further upscaled via Topaz.

View attachment e1db524097624e419a1fab3a110b2d17.jpg
Unconverted GFX


Converted X-E2

--
Apollon

Apollon+

Explore Apollon+’s 515 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Doppler9000]

If anyone is following this thread, after taking a couple more photos, it becomes clear to me that the non converted Fuji (GFX) just can't get the trees to become as white as the converted one (X-E2) can. The first includes various temperature and editing adjustments (with mask) as well as with different levels of captured exposure (by varying ISO) whereas the second one provides bright white trees and other foliage right off the bat. In fact, in the converted Fuji, the entire photo stands out as if the sun was brighter and with higher contrast.

So unless anyone can provide any other trick on how to turn the foliage in the GFX as white and bright as the one in the X-E2, I think I will be sticking with the converted X-E2 - and probably buying back the Fuji 14mm for the 3rd time in the past 10 years.

Below are the two examples shot, within seconds of each other (various other similar shots have results in similar outcomes). The X-E2 was further upscaled via Topaz.

View attachment e1db524097624e419a1fab3a110b2d17.jpg
Unconverted GFX


Converted X-E2

There is no way to replicate the whiteness of the converted camera.

As the cut-off wavelength gets longer, the foliage becomes whiter.

Consider getting an adapter and the Canon EF-S 10-18mm lens. It works very well in IR on a converted Fuji.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

If anyone is following this thread, after taking a couple more photos, it becomes clear to me that the non converted Fuji (GFX) just can't get the trees to become as white as the converted one (X-E2) can. The first includes various temperature and editing adjustments (with mask) as well as with different levels of captured exposure (by varying ISO) whereas the second one provides bright white trees and other foliage right off the bat. In fact, in the converted Fuji, the entire photo stands out as if the sun was brighter and with higher contrast.

So unless anyone can provide any other trick on how to turn the foliage in the GFX as white and bright as the one in the X-E2, I think I will be sticking with the converted X-E2 - and probably buying back the Fuji 14mm for the 3rd time in the past 10 years.

Below are the two examples shot, within seconds of each other (various other similar shots have results in similar outcomes). The X-E2 was further upscaled via Topaz.

There is no way to replicate the whiteness of the converted camera.

As the cut-off wavelength gets longer, the foliage becomes whiter.

Consider getting an adapter and the Canon EF-S 10-18mm lens. It works very well in IR on a converted Fuji.

That confirmed, thanks. Do you reckon that adapted canon can provide similar contrast to the native Fuji lenses and do you know if it has any hotspots? Every single adapted lens I've tried on Fuji X in the past had a loss of contrast.

 

[Doppler9000]

If anyone is following this thread, after taking a couple more photos, it becomes clear to me that the non converted Fuji (GFX) just can't get the trees to become as white as the converted one (X-E2) can. The first includes various temperature and editing adjustments (with mask) as well as with different levels of captured exposure (by varying ISO) whereas the second one provides bright white trees and other foliage right off the bat. In fact, in the converted Fuji, the entire photo stands out as if the sun was brighter and with higher contrast.

So unless anyone can provide any other trick on how to turn the foliage in the GFX as white and bright as the one in the X-E2, I think I will be sticking with the converted X-E2 - and probably buying back the Fuji 14mm for the 3rd time in the past 10 years.

Below are the two examples shot, within seconds of each other (various other similar shots have results in similar outcomes). The X-E2 was further upscaled via Topaz.

There is no way to replicate the whiteness of the converted camera.

As the cut-off wavelength gets longer, the foliage becomes whiter.

Consider getting an adapter and the Canon EF-S 10-18mm lens. It works very well in IR on a converted Fuji.

That confirmed, thanks. Do you reckon that adapted canon can provide similar contrast to the native Fuji lenses and do you know if it has any hotspots? Every single adapted lens I've tried on Fuji X in the past had a loss of contrast.

I found it superior to any Fuji native lenses with regard to contrast and saw no hotspots.

From the Kolari hotspot database:

“Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (good at all apertures and very sharp)”