The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

So has anyone experienced PDAF pimples on 100S files?

algrove

Well-known member
Only asking because no one here that I know of has mentioned this as an issue. Just noticed diglloyd posted this today as an issue he has run across. Do not know why, but often his issues come from extreme processing. Here he uses ACR,and noticed this at 200%. He used a 4x Breakthrough polarizing filter on the 80/1.7. Processed with shadows +100, highlights -65 , +19 whites and pushed about 0.5 stops. Comments.
 

Joe Colson

Well-known member
I read his post but haven't seen anything like that. If they exist, wouldn't they be evident on GFX 100 files also? Why hasn't anyone reported this in the last 2 years? Hmmmm

Joe
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The pimple issue he describes is present in my Leica SL2_S and its quite easy to see under the right conditions . (Yet I have never seen it reported ????) . It occurs when you have a very detailed background in bright sunlight at distance . Like trees at a distance . Its similar to a specular highlight but it has a oval shape with an inner ring . Shooting Little League Baseball ...I had well over 1000 captures before I had even one image with the problem . But once the conditions were right I had dozens of images with pimples in the tree area .

I think its much easier to see if the image is converted to B&W . I would not like this problem if I was shooting in the mountains like DL ...but for me its just a small irritation occasionally . DL illustrations show this issue without question on the Fuji 100S.



For my usage I just masked the area and pulled down the highlights . This keeps it from being distracting .

Every system I have ever used has had something unusual about how it renders . You learn the system and adjust to produce an aesthetic you like .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Thats the whole point of reading DL reports . He tells you what he sees and under what conditions etc ....with examples . I have zero doubt that he is accurate 90% of the time in his findings . But the photographer has to use those findings as a guide for evaluating their own needs .

DL conclusions are extremely "self centered " based on his shooting requirements as he defines them . Ignore his conclusions and understand his findings ....then you can decide . Nothing I have seen in any of his detail tests of the Fuji 100S would concern me about image quality .

Anecdotal reports of "never seen that problem " are just that ....the observation of a single photographer on daily use tests .
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I have looked and looked but cannot see ANY of the anomalies Chambers has shown. I also used the 80mm lens. In his example it shows up with lighter backgrounds and I tried to replicate but couldn't see any pimples. It could be camera specific vs. a global electronic condition.

Victor B.
 
Last edited:

Joe Colson

Well-known member
The GFX 100 was introduced in June 2019. It has the same sensor as the 100S. And it has PDAF pixels, 3.76M of them, built into the sensor. Why haven't there been complaints of PDAF pimples in the past two years? Have I missed something? I'm not referring to the SL2-S or any other camera. If a reviewer's findings, including Lloyd's, are so esoteric that they are only reproducible under extreme conditions that no one else duplicates, then I question the usefulness and validity of those findings. Lloyd is welcome to his opinion, but my [email protected]#t meter just pegged. Jim Kasson's tests of the 100S (https://blog.kasson.com/category/gfx-100s/) are far more scientific and believable. If and when he reports the presence of PDAF pimples, I'll listen.

Joe
 

Rand47

Active member
Joe,

EXACTLY….. I’ve been using the GFX 100 since release and have never even seen the PDAF “banding” that Jim Kasson was able to find in his testing - which, by the way - has been eliminated in firmware. PDAF ”pimples” …. good grief.

Rand
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The GFX 100 was introduced in June 2019. It has the same sensor as the 100S. And it has PDAF pixels, 3.76M of them, built into the sensor. Why haven't there been complaints of PDAF pimples in the past two years? Have I missed something? I'm not referring to the SL2-S or any other camera. If a reviewer's findings, including Lloyd's, are so esoteric that they are only reproducible under extreme conditions that no one else duplicates, then I question the usefulness and validity of those findings. Lloyd is welcome to his opinion, but my [email protected]#t meter just pegged. Jim Kasson's tests of the 100S (https://blog.kasson.com/category/gfx-100s/) are far more scientific and believable. If and when he reports the presence of PDAF pimples, I'll listen.

Joe
Joe.

My example of the Sl2_S was intended to show that its an aberration that is easy to miss . No one complains about the SL2_S : it doesn t show up in any tests I have seen ....YET I found it and could easily show it to anyone that wants to see it .

Just because you can t find others complaining ..does not mean it isn t there . I am looking at the examples from DL on my iMac 5K and there are definitely pimples in his examples . Its not an opinion when its visible in the test results .

The opinion is when he calls this a major factor ...thats subjective ..in the eye of the beholder .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The questions we should be asking ...

Under what circumstances and with what subjects are pimples actually visible ?

What I have seen in DL examples and with my Leicas is that pimples are most visible in very high contrast and detailed images . Like the pebbles in bright sun on a distant mountain .

Do pimples really result in an unacceptable rendering ?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

As to Jim Kasson ......I not sure when I read his tests that he would be even looking for "pimples " . Doesn t mean his tests are good just that they may not be designed to identify the issues described by DL.

Roger
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Issues reported like this one are the reason I don't bother reading too many other people's reviews of equipment. There are maybe two, maybe three reviewers I read because they include useful, practical descriptions of what they find as they use the equipment in a manner that makes sense to me (because it's similar to how I use my equipment...).

G
 

Joe Colson

Well-known member
Joe.

My example of the Sl2_S was intended to show that its an aberration that is easy to miss . No one complains about the SL2_S : it doesn t show up in any tests I have seen ....YET I found it and could easily show it to anyone that wants to see it .

Just because you can t find others complaining ..does not mean it isn t there . I am looking at the examples from DL on my iMac 5K and there are definitely pimples in his examples . Its not an opinion when its visible in the test results .

The opinion is when he calls this a major factor ...thats subjective ..in the eye of the beholder .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The questions we should be asking ...

Under what circumstances and with what subjects are pimples actually visible ?

What I have seen in DL examples and with my Leicas is that pimples are most visible in very high contrast and detailed images . Like the pebbles in bright sun on a distant mountain .

Do pimples really result in an unacceptable rendering ?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

As to Jim Kasson ......I not sure when I read his tests that he would be even looking for "pimples " . Doesn t mean his tests are good just that they may not be designed to identify the issues described by DL.

Roger
Roger, I'm seeing the same thing you're seeing in Lloyd's files. And I'm looking at them on a 32" Apple Pro Display XDR. So I have no doubt that something is causing Lloyd's "pimples". In the pixel-peeping world we live in, I'm just asking, "Why hasn't anyone seen or reported this since June 2019?" I have created a Lightroom/ACR preset with Lloyd's settings and looked at several GFX 100S .RAF files and can't reproduce the pimples. Have you or anyone else been able to reproduce Lloyd's findings with either the GFX 100 or 100S? They're obviously not significant to Lloyd because he's purchased the camera and several GF lenses (and borrowed a couple more for reviews). BTW, I've got skin in the game - I'm "all in" on the GFX 100S and GF lenses and I'm a subscriber to Lloyd's Medium Format review section.

This all reminds me of a visit to my orthopedist some years ago. This guy is one of the best in town and treats the Carolina Hurricanes hockey team. I had a sore knee that only hurt when I kneeled on it and put my weight on that one knee. It was one of those shooting pains that was almost like someone sticking an ice pick into my knee. Well, the doc examined my knee, rotating it through the range of motion, took x-rays, and then reexamined the knee after looking at the images. He told me, "I can't find anything that would cause the pain you're experiencing." I replied, "But the knee hurts like hell when I kneel on it." His response - "Then don't do that."

So my conclusion is kinda like that of the orthopedist. If the anomaly is so rare that it is only seen is some extreme use case, then I won't do that.

As far as Jim Kasson's tests are concerned, I trust his results. He's tested for PDAF banding and likely will test for the elusive "pimples".

Joe
 

algrove

Well-known member
I say it might be ACR and the way DL uses it. Why take shadows up +100 and in his B&W conversions why not try C1 so he can see if it is ACR causing his issues which often seem extreme to me anyway.

Clickbait?
 
Last edited:
Top