View Single Post
Old Friday 21st September 2018, 17:37   #15
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,107
Originally Posted by katastrofa View Post
I even made a numerical (though not scientific) test: I took PNG snapshots of the area you selected as photographed by X-T2 and by X-T3. Loaded them into Python and calculated the standard deviations of each channel (R,G,B,alpha):

import imageio
import numpy as np

x_t2 = imageio.imread('x-t2.png')
x_t3 = imageio.imread('x-t3.png')

print('X-T2 noise: %s' % str(np.std(x_t2, axis=(0, 1))))
print('X-T3 noise: %s' % str(np.std(x_t3, axis=(0, 1))))


X-T2 noise: [ 8.65137779 8.13238693 10.14568645 0. ]
X-T3 noise: [7.92599595 7.53614226 8.89362844 0. ]

(scale 0-255)

So OK, the noise seems to be a bit lower for X-T3.

(Please don't use my methodology for anything serious, it's crap.)
Nice calculations! :-)

The link I provided was to RAW conversions with ACR so not sure how much that affects things.
To me the difference seemed smaller when opening files in RawFileConverter 3.0 EX.
The lighting seems to be different in the photos as well so hard to say what is what.
At least the low ISO X-T3 files looked a bit sharper when open in Fujis RAW converter.
In real life the difference is probably marginal when shooting a telephoto lens that probably is the limiting factor + everything else.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Friday 21st September 2018 at 17:49.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote