X-Trans sensor dynamic range differences, between various Fujifilm camera models

[BeatX]

Erik, that's not the point.
It's not about whether this is a serious problem in real-world use or not.
It's about the inconsistency in the measurable DR parameters of Fujifilm same generation X-Trans sensors (different models have different measurement results)
So it turns out that some Fujifilm cameras have better sensor DR, and some have worse.

No, not necessarily. I could easily mean one was focused better than the other, one sensor was warmer than the other, the line voltage was a little low that day and the exposures are a little off etc, these might not even have been shot at the same location (DPR and the test scene moved recently). I can't imagine there is a significant difference in RAW performance between two different current X-Trans 5 cameras.

Well.. seems like, that both optyczne.pl and photonstophotos.net had warmer sensor that day, when they did tests of Fuji cameras, same as line voltage was little off in places where they were performing tests

Anyways, joke aside - why I care about dynamic range? Because it is very important sensor feature in my photography style.
I choose to shoot in hard way, and very often Im shooting against strong light source.
I like it that way, because I very much like strong light contrast and I just love to play with light and shadow.
DR is very important sensor parameter not only in landscape photography imo.
Its super important in concert photography as well.

Here, some examples to show You guys what I mean about shooting in high dynamic range scenarios, not only in landscape:
















In this one I would rally love to have more DR..

Thanks all for interesting insights and opinions.
Like I said earlier, I think I will keep X-H2, because apart from the DR differences between X-H2 and X-T5, I remembered my impressions when I was holding X-T5 in camera store year ago.
My first thought was: "damn, X-T5 is so uncomfortable to hold without deep grip" and X-H2 feels more premium and robust than X-T5.
Then, seller attached to X-T5 MHG-XT5 grip, and after that I had good comfort holding X-T5
But then again, X-T5 with MHG-XT5 attached is basically same weight as X-H2 alone, so no weight savings for me.
And I'm not a big fan of tilting screens, I very much prefer fully articulating screens - they are imo much more usefull (for example, I can take selfies)



Plus, X-H2 has secondary LCD display, which is super handy when using lenses with variable aperture, like new Fuji kit lens (which I love, btw)

--
X-H2 | Viltrox 13/1.4 | Viltrox 27/1.2 | Viltrox 75/1.2 | Fujinon 16-50/2.8-4.8
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/

 

[Bill Ferris]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.




Photonstophotos.net chart

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+. Yes, there is a drop off in read noise beyond the dual gain transition point, but if maximum DR is required, the loss of sensor exposure required to shoot at the higher ISO value (and the subsequent increased shot noise and limiting of dynamic range) far outweighs any slight read noise advantage. Greater sensor exposure at a lower ISO setting always trumps less exposure at a higher ISO setting.

If you're in very low light and want the greater dynamic range of a lower ISO then. if the maximum exposure you can manage (Aperture + SS) + ISO 500 or greater won't clip any important highlight detail, then there is an advantage over a lower ISO if you're going to be pushing the shadows in post, but if using ISO 500 requires a reduction in sensor exposure to prevent highlight clipping, you're going to be better off dropping the ISO below the dual gain threshold instead.

Also, I suspect the ISO 320 you're seeing in Beat's example is because he was using DR400 which is a fundamentally different application of ISO than just setting ISO 320. Unlike "normal” ISO 320, in DR400 mode the ISO 320 setting doesn't contribute to highlight clipping in the RAW data (nor does it actually improve the available dynamic range). in the case of the overly blown sun, this was simply because, despite the extra 2 stops of highlight headroom improvement (effectively the same as base ISO 160 with -2 stops of exposure), the highlights were still beyond the clipping threshold - this not a dynamic range limitation of the sensor, but a simple exposure setting error. Some additional negative exposure compensation would have recorded more highlight detail and likely still left the shadows plenty clean enough to push them to where they need to go. Much easier to just shoot at DR100 with more negative exposure compensation (where the blinkies are very accurate for determining highlight clipping) IMO, but i don't care how the SOOC jpeg looks -

Base ISO 160 with -3 stops of exposure compensation produces a functionally identical RAW file to shooting at ISO320 with DR400 and -1 stop of exposure compensation, except that the DR400 RAW will contain a metadata tag that tells the RAW editor to automatically to apply +2 stops of image lightening to the default import processing,

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+.

That is not universality true. It depends on the camera. In Thom Hogans Z8/Z9 book he points out if your ISO is 200 or above on the Z8 or Z9 you get more DR by cranking the ISO up to 500. In fact ISO 500 has almost a full stop more than ISO 400. The Photons to Photos charts reflect this. I definitely take that into account when using my Z8.

The advanced of these cameras is the ISO 64 base. However, once you reach ISO 200, that advantage is gone as there is a significant DR bump at ISO 500 when the second gain kicks in. None of the fuji cameras provide a significant "bump" at the second gain point. The XH2S produces a bump of .14 stops while the XH2 simply does not lose any DR between ISO 400 and ISO 500. So with my XH2, there is nothing to take into account.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+.

That is not universality true. It depends on the camera. In Thom Hogans Z8/Z9 book he points out if your ISO is 200 or above on the Z8 or Z9 you get more DR by cranking the ISO up to 500. In fact ISO 500 has almost a full stop more than ISO 400. The Photons to Photos charts reflect this. I definitely take that into account when using my Z8.

The advanced of these cameras is the ISO 64 base. However, once you reach ISO 200, that advantage is gone as there is a significant DR bump at ISO 500 when the second gain kicks in. None of the fuji cameras provide a significant "bump" at the second gain point. The XH2S produces a bump of .14 stops while the XH2 simply does not lose any DR between ISO 400 and ISO 500. So with my XH2, there is nothing to take into account.

Yeah, but we aren’t talking about the Nikon Z8/9 though, we’re talking specifically about Fujis (and this is why it is a really good idea to have some working knowledge of how your camera actually operates “under the hood”. Also, while there might be a DR advantage at ISO 500 vs. ISO 400 with the Nikons, there is still significantly more DR available at base ISO than at ISO 500.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+.

That is not universality true. It depends on the camera. In Thom Hogans Z8/Z9 book he points out if your ISO is 200 or above on the Z8 or Z9 you get more DR by cranking the ISO up to 500. In fact ISO 500 has almost a full stop more than ISO 400. The Photons to Photos charts reflect this. I definitely take that into account when using my Z8.

The advanced of these cameras is the ISO 64 base. However, once you reach ISO 200, that advantage is gone as there is a significant DR bump at ISO 500 when the second gain kicks in. None of the fuji cameras provide a significant "bump" at the second gain point. The XH2S produces a bump of .14 stops while the XH2 simply does not lose any DR between ISO 400 and ISO 500. So with my XH2, there is nothing to take into account.

Yeah, but we aren’t talking about the Nikon Z8/9 though, we’re talking specifically about Fujis (and this is why it is a really good idea to have some working knowledge of how your camera actually operates “under the hood”. Also, while there might be a DR advantage at ISO 500 vs. ISO 400 with the Nikons, there is still significantly more DR available at base ISO than at ISO 500.

However, that is advantage ends at ISO 200 long before one gets to ISO 500. Every camera is different. Dual gain is implemented differently to the specifications given to Sony (in this case) by Fujifilm, Nikon, sometimes Leica, etc. on how to implement the dual gain architecture. That was my point. There is nothing universal. It is a function of the camera and sensor.

There is always an advantage at base ISO. That's never been in question. BTW not all Fujis are the same. The 26 MP stacked sensor in the XH2S does have a slight bump at ISO 500.

If one wants the max dynamic range then one needs to put the camera on a tripod and shoot at base. If the scene still has too much DR to be captured properly, then exposure bracketing and HDR merging is call for. The human eye with the aid of the human brain can properly render images with up to 20 stops (60 dB) dynamic range.

Clarkvision Photography - Resolution of the Human Eye

How does the dynamic range of the human eye compare to that of digital cameras?

According to DxO tests, cameras have 10 to 12 stops of dynamic range. Is that correct? Noise can completely screw some lowers values (easily resulting in loss of some stops). Also Norman Koren say...

photo.stackexchange.com

Cameras today are close to maxed out at 10-12 stops for APSC to FF cameras with FF having about a stop more. Medium format will had another stop. Large medium format, e.g., Phase One will had maybe another.

At the end of the day - a camera is not going to match the DR of the human eye. Using B&W large format film and the appropriate development - one could get up to 15 stops. But today with APSC and FF digital we are limited in the 10-12 stop range at best at base ISO. Since the quantum efficient of sensor technology today is close to being at its theoretical limit - there is not going to be a huge breakthrough in DR. More DR will come from larger sensors and hence more collected light.

That is the lessons photographers have to take away. If one wants to capture and display more DR - then one has to use other methods, e.g., exposure bracketing and merging when feasible. If that is not an option, choose the important compositional objects in a scene and pick the exposure to support that decision understanding that not all highlights and shadows can be recovered.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+.

That is not universality true. It depends on the camera. In Thom Hogans Z8/Z9 book he points out if your ISO is 200 or above on the Z8 or Z9 you get more DR by cranking the ISO up to 500. In fact ISO 500 has almost a full stop more than ISO 400. The Photons to Photos charts reflect this. I definitely take that into account when using my Z8.

The advanced of these cameras is the ISO 64 base. However, once you reach ISO 200, that advantage is gone as there is a significant DR bump at ISO 500 when the second gain kicks in. None of the fuji cameras provide a significant "bump" at the second gain point. The XH2S produces a bump of .14 stops while the XH2 simply does not lose any DR between ISO 400 and ISO 500. So with my XH2, there is nothing to take into account.

Yeah, but we aren’t talking about the Nikon Z8/9 though, we’re talking specifically about Fujis (and this is why it is a really good idea to have some working knowledge of how your camera actually operates “under the hood”. Also, while there might be a DR advantage at ISO 500 vs. ISO 400 with the Nikons, there is still significantly more DR available at base ISO than at ISO 500.

However, that is advantage ends at ISO 200 long before one gets to ISO 500. Every camera is different. Dual gain is implemented differently to the specifications given to Sony (in this case) by Fujifilm, Nikon, sometimes Leica, etc. on how to implement the dual gain architecture. That was my point. There is nothing universal. It is a function of the camera and sensor.

Well, it is the case with the cameras being discussed in this thread. The unusual bump in DR with the Z8 around the dual gain transition has more to do with the consequences of implementing a noisy, high speed electronic shutter with no mechanical shutter option than anything else - it's not typical.




Read noise Z8 vs. X-S10. The Z8 isn't really exceptional in the DR department at higher ISOs, it's exceptionally bad in the read noise department at lower ISOs which significantly impacts the dynamic range numbers.

There is always an advantage at base ISO. That's never been in question. BTW not all Fujis are the same. The 26 MP stacked sensor in the XH2S does have a slight bump at ISO 500.

What I'm trying to get across here is that, with the cameras being discussed here, advocating bumping up the ISO to beyond the dual gain point (and consequently reducing sensor exposure to prevent clipping) will absolutely yield a noisier/lower dynamic result relative to reducing the ISO to increase dynamic range and leaving the exposure alone or increasing it to maximize the signal to noise ratio.

If one wants the max dynamic range then one needs to put the camera on a tripod and shoot at base.

A tripod is hardy a requirement for shooting at base ISO, especially with APS-C If the dynamic range situation is very high. That goes for lower light shooting too, especially with OIS/IBIS. One needs to not limit dynamic range unnecessarily, by setting the ISO too high.

If the scene still has too much DR to be captured properly, then exposure bracketing and HDR merging is call for. The human eye with the aid of the human brain can properly render images with up to 20 stops (60 dB) dynamic range.

https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...-human-eye-compare-to-that-of-digital-cameras

Cameras today are close to maxed out at 10-12 stops for APSC to FF cameras with FF having about a stop more. Medium format will had another stop. Large medium format, e.g., Phase One will had maybe another.

At the end of the day - a camera is not going to match the DR of the human eye. Using B&W large format film and the appropriate development - one could get up to 15 stops. But today with APSC and FF digital we are limited in the 10-12 stop range at best at base ISO. Since the quantum efficient of sensor technology today is close to being at its theoretical limit - there is not going to be a huge breakthrough in DR. More DR will come from larger sensors and hence more collected light.

That is the lessons photographers have to take away. If one wants to capture and display more DR - then one has to use other methods, e.g., exposure bracketing and merging when feasible. If that is not an option, choose the important compositional objects in a scene and pick the exposure to support that decision understanding that not all highlights and shadows can be recovered.

All I was trying to convey is how to get the greatest possible dynamic range out of the Fuji cameras in this thread in a single RAW exposure, not whether our eyeballs, a larger format sensor, or exposure bracketing can do better. It's not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+.

As I stated at the outset, my observations are related to ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without suffering a read noise penalty.

Yes, there is a drop off in read noise beyond the dual gain transition point, but if maximum DR is required, the loss of sensor exposure required to shoot at the higher ISO value (and the subsequent increased shot noise and limiting of dynamic range) far outweighs any slight read noise advantage.

However, as mentioned above, maximum dynamic range isn't the issue. The only sample photo the OP shared and complained about not having enough dynamic range was the one photo made with 3+ stops more dynamic range than many of the other photos. Clearly, dynamic range isn't the issue in that photo.

Greater sensor exposure at a lower ISO setting always trumps less exposure at a higher ISO setting.

That's been demonstrated to be incorrect countless times in this and other forums. There are many photographic scenarios in which optimum exposure is achieved at combinations of lighting, f-stop and shutter speed that are compatible with ISOs well above base.

We don't make photos to capture as much light as possible. We capture as much light as is needed to make a great photo.

As I recommended to the OP, reducing exposure by 2/3-stop to get into the camera's invariant range will allow them to push shadows in post by 2, 3 or more stops without a read noise penalty. This will more than compensate for the minimal impact on dynamic range.

If you're in very low light and want the greater dynamic range of a lower ISO then. if the maximum exposure you can manage (Aperture + SS) + ISO 500 or greater won't clip any important highlight detail, then there is an advantage over a lower ISO if you're going to be pushing the shadows in post, but if using ISO 500 requires a reduction in sensor exposure to prevent highlight clipping, you're going to be better off dropping the ISO below the dual gain threshold instead.

The benefits of working within a camera's invariant range outweigh the minimally higher dynamic range correlated with a 1/3- or 2/3-stop lower ISO. When a photographer anticipates a need to significantly push image lightness or shadows in post, working within the camera's invariance range is good practice.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I suspect it's not dynamic range you're after so much as ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without revealing significant read noise. That's the story your photos tell.

With one exception, the sample photos you share were all made using ISOs of 500 or higher, which is where the X-H2 and X-S10 become invariant. Several photos were made at ISO 3200 where the X-H2 has about 6 stops of dynamic range.

The one photo where you comment in the caption about wanting more dynamic range, was made with the X-S10 at ISO 320. The camera has 9.4 stops of dynamic range at that ISO. The more than 3-stops advantage in DR in comparison with the ISO 3200 photos couldn't overcome being outside the invariance range for the camera.

A good takeaway for those following this thread is, when making a photo you know you'll be lifting by 2+ stops in post to reveal detail in the shadows, to take advantage of and work within the invariant range of the camera. That's ISO 500 or higher for many Fujifilm X-series bodies.

Just no. Maximum dynamic range/maximum signal to noise ratio is achieved at base ISO, not ISO 500+.

As I stated at the outset, my observations are related to ISO invariance and the ability to lift shadows in post without suffering a read noise penalty.

If you have to reduce exposure to get your ISO into the invariant range, the resulting increase in shot shot noise will outweigh any slight reduction in read noise with the higher ISO setting.

Yes, there is a drop off in read noise beyond the dual gain transition point, but if maximum DR is required, the loss of sensor exposure required to shoot at the higher ISO value (and the subsequent increased shot noise and limiting of dynamic range) far outweighs any slight read noise advantage.

However, as mentioned above, maximum dynamic range isn't the issue. The only sample photo the OP shared and complained about not having enough dynamic range was the one photo made with 3+ stops more dynamic range than many of the other photos. Clearly, dynamic range isn't the issue in that photo.

Dynamic range is certainly a consideration with that photo (and the others as well). The highlights are clipped, not because of a DR limitation of the sensor, but because the available DR wasn't well utilized. Increasing the ISO into the more invariant range would reduce the available DR significantly and make the shadow detail significantly noisier. Base ISO with the brightest important highlights recorded just below clipping (ETTR) is the way to go here. No reason whatsoever to increase the ISO above base.

Greater sensor exposure at a lower ISO setting always trumps less exposure at a higher ISO setting.

That's been demonstrated to be incorrect countless times in this and other forums.

Yet you are arguing against doing that.

There are many photographic scenarios in which optimum exposure is achieved at combinations of lighting, f-stop and shutter speed that are compatible with ISOs well above base.

If you can increase the exposure without compromising motion blur or DOF requirements, there is no reason to increase the ISO instead, including beyond the dual gain threshold.

We don't make photos to capture as much light as possible. We capture as much light as is needed to make a great photo.

All other things being equal, more light makes a better photo than more ISO.

As I recommended to the OP, reducing exposure by 2/3-stop to get into the camera's invariant range will allow them to push shadows in post by 2, 3 or more stops without a read noise penalty. This will more than compensate for the minimal impact on dynamic range.

Absolutely not. There is significantly greater DR available at base ISO than at ISO 500 - that means recording the brightest important highlights and the darkest possible shadow detail with the lowest possible noise - this is the desired result, and best achieved at base ISO.

If you're in very low light and want the greater dynamic range of a lower ISO then. if the maximum exposure you can manage (Aperture + SS) + ISO 500 or greater won't clip any important highlight detail, then there is an advantage over a lower ISO if you're going to be pushing the shadows in post, but if using ISO 500 requires a reduction in sensor exposure to prevent highlight clipping, you're going to be better off dropping the ISO below the dual gain threshold instead.

The benefits of working within a camera's invariant range outweigh the minimally higher dynamic range correlated with a 1/3- or 2/3-stop lower ISO. When a photographer anticipates a need to significantly push image lightness or shadows in post, working within the camera's invariance range is good practice.

This is just not the case. More exposure (less shot noise) trumps read noise advantage in every Fuji camera that I am aware of...


More exposure + an ISO value below the dual-gain threshold (L) vs. Less exposure + an ISO value beyond the dual gain threshold (R). Which is noisier?