Avotius
Some guy
You know.... I think what I really want is an Xpro1 but in the XE1's size. Dont say its not possible because the X100 still has a nice optical viewfinder and we should hope that Fuji is in for the long run on this system. I think it will happen eventually.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I went with the Fuji system for a variety of reasons, but this is a weak argument. The difference in sensor size between APS-C and 4/3 is ~23%. That is not enough of a difference to be operationally meaningful.
The past differences between m4/3 sensors and APS-C had more to do with Panasonic lagging Sony a bit in sensor tech. Now that Olympus is using a Sony sensor in the OM-D, the difference in sensor performance is pretty much nulled.
willie_901
Veteran
I completely disagree with you.
Looking at the raw image ISO 1600 comparisons on DPREVIEW, there is a difference.
The sensor surface area is the most significant factor that determines performance for similar implimentations of sensor technology. The OM-D sensor area is 224.9 mm^2 compared to 368.16 mm^2 for the XP-1. The m4/3 area is 61% of the Fuji's area. The OM-D collects 39% less data which is a non-trivial handicap. I agree the OM-D does very well compared to previous m 4/3 cameras. It's not competitive for me.
I stated in my first post the difference was important to me and not important for others. I really don't care what other people buy or why they buy it. But the physics of light digitization is relevant to image quality.
heed
Member
OM-D.
Fuji system is too quirky and no IS or weathersealing.
I've tried multiple systems and the IQ argument is very weak. There is always a larger format and better performance, but most of the APS-C options and OM-D are neck-and-neck IMHO.
I have no problem with film except I can't buy it or process it where I live. I still love using my film bodies though.
I didn't want to like the OM-D at first but in the end there were too few arguments against it. Now, IMHO it seems like many of those who choose against the OM-D do so because of an anti-establishment bent or desire to be 'better' than those who went with the OM-D.
Fuji system is too quirky and no IS or weathersealing.
I've tried multiple systems and the IQ argument is very weak. There is always a larger format and better performance, but most of the APS-C options and OM-D are neck-and-neck IMHO.
I have no problem with film except I can't buy it or process it where I live. I still love using my film bodies though.
I didn't want to like the OM-D at first but in the end there were too few arguments against it. Now, IMHO it seems like many of those who choose against the OM-D do so because of an anti-establishment bent or desire to be 'better' than those who went with the OM-D.
heed
Member
PS- I would love to try an M9, MM, or new M if someone wants to loan me one. 
Come on man, you really think this? Perhaps some just like that the Fuji has dedicated shutter speed dials and aperture rings and doesn't feel like a TV remote control?
gavinlg
Veteran
That really depends on who you ask - I find olympus digital cameras extremely quirky. The menu system on the om-d is frightfully disorganized and overly complex. The x-pro1 has manual dials/controls and a simple menu, and a single AF spot. Not sure how that's classified as quirky, but each to their own.
A lot of us started out with m4/3 in mirrorless cameras 2-3 years ago, and got sick of waiting for olympus and panasonic (mainly olympus) to bring out an advanced camera with the built-in finder, and fast primes. However many years on, there is STILL no decent fast 35mm equivalent AF lens for m4/3. Panasonic filled in the lineup a little bit recently, but the panasonic supply chain is dismal for their lumix gear outside of japan.
Sonys NEX lens lineup is still nonexistent.
Fuji on the other hand, had a fairly comprehensive lens lineup out of the box with the x-system (28mm f2, x100 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2.4 equivalents), and next year you can add a 21mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 2x fast IS zooms, and several zeiss AF lenses to that list.
Fuji hit the ground running with pretty much everything we were asking for, whilst olympus fumbled around with non-sensical superzooms and dumbed down compacts released one after the other for years.
That's why a lot of us feel strongly about the Fuji's.
heed
Member
I agree about the menu system, but the nice thing is that once you set it up, you shouldn't have to touch it. I also agree about the NEX lens lineup.
It seems to me that the two lens systems are about the same, not that Fuji's is superior. However, m43's system seems more open and expandable since there's more manufacturers onboard (of course they include low-end superzooms though).
Matus
Well-known
I am aware than OM-D is on the 'small size' sensor-wise, but it is the most complete and developed product on the mirror-less market right now (body design, lens offer, ...). And it has definite size advantage what for me would be a plus, as I will, for the foreseeable future, cary a medium format camera with me.
I am still waiting for that external impulse (should I say 'need') to buy a mirror-less camera In comparison to film cameras - mirror-less cameras getting better ever couple of months, so no hurry on my side.
I am still waiting for that external impulse (should I say 'need') to buy a mirror-less camera
In comparison to film cameras - mirror-less cameras getting better ever couple of months, so no hurry on my side.Mark T
Established
I prefer the aspect ratio of micro four thirds cameras. This can have quite an effect on the final appearance of an image. Film is still beaut though and addresses many of the issues people talk about - battery life, complicated menus, limited depth of field, lack of prime/zoom lenses and so on.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
You're assuming that both sensor architectures have similar quantum efficiency and noise characteristics. Sony (manufacturer of the EM5 sensor) has been ahead on both fronts for long enough that that's probably not a good assumption.
I really like the output from the Fuji sensor but I believe that to have more to do with the non-Beyer array pattern and the camera's JPEG image processing pipeline than simple sensor area.
gustavoAvila
Established
I spent some time with a Fuji X Pro 1 when it first came out and was extremely impressed with the general feel and layout of the camera! (In fact, I think this is the best consumer camera on the market with regard to control usability.)
However, focusing was pokey, camera raw support non-existent and the price high so I passed.
In the interim, the OM-D was released and I purchased one as soon as it was available. (I had an EP-2 and brace of m4/3 lenses so this was an easy decision.)
The OM-D has exceeded all my expectations and is small enough to carry along with a film body. (Paradoxically, the size of the OM-D is both a plus and a negative! It is easy to tote along, but it is also a bit too small for most adult males.)
As such, I have no need or interest in the Fuji XE-1. For me, the Pro-1 is the more compelling product. Hopefully, the next iteration will be the cats meow!
However, focusing was pokey, camera raw support non-existent and the price high so I passed.
In the interim, the OM-D was released and I purchased one as soon as it was available. (I had an EP-2 and brace of m4/3 lenses so this was an easy decision.)
The OM-D has exceeded all my expectations and is small enough to carry along with a film body. (Paradoxically, the size of the OM-D is both a plus and a negative! It is easy to tote along, but it is also a bit too small for most adult males.)
As such, I have no need or interest in the Fuji XE-1. For me, the Pro-1 is the more compelling product. Hopefully, the next iteration will be the cats meow!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
OM-D.
Fuji cameras feels flimsy in my hand, dials move around on their base, that kind of thing.
Olympus (or Sony NEX) has higher build quality and with the new Sony sensor (good riddance, Panasonic), the image quality is now unquestionable.
The only thing that will prevent me from getting the OM-D is a Pen -class digital camera that has a real viewfinder.
That or a full-frame E-7 (hahah, keep dreaming on that one )
Fuji cameras feels flimsy in my hand, dials move around on their base, that kind of thing.
Olympus (or Sony NEX) has higher build quality and with the new Sony sensor (good riddance, Panasonic), the image quality is now unquestionable.
The only thing that will prevent me from getting the OM-D is a Pen -class digital camera that has a real viewfinder.
That or a full-frame E-7 (hahah, keep dreaming on that one
)semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Many of the comparisons in this thread are of the mountains-out-of-molehills variety.
I'm using an X-E1 and before that had an X-Pro1. I've looked at the NEX's and examined the NEX-7's RAW output closely using a large series of test images that I shot. I've looked closely at the OM-D and I used a GF1 exclusively for a two week vacation. Bottom line: Anyone who can't use the NEX's or the Fuji X's or an OM-D or a GX1 to make good images is a wanker. They're all quite similar in performance and all can be made to work for most sorts of general photography if you're even halfway competent.
We are in a golden age. It is too easy to forget that all of these cameras are amazingly capable for their size and price.
If you need markedly better file quality you'll be wanting a D800 or something bigger. Yes, it really is that simple. The technical differences between the cameras under discussion in this thread are incremental. Maybe half a generation of sensor development.
Last week I was watching David Alan Harvey put up big exhibition prints made by Mike Courvoisier, up to 40" x 60." They were made with GF1, D700, D800, M9, M6, Mamiya 7. All looked fantastic, though of course the D800 and Ma7 prints were a (technical) cut above the rest: more detail and tonal subtlety than the others. N.b.: the prints expected to bring the highest price were shot with the GF1. Let that be a lesson to us all.
DAH is currently shooting mainly with a Panasonic GX1 and a Leica S2, and his Mamiya 7 is still in use as well.
I'm using an X-E1 and before that had an X-Pro1. I've looked at the NEX's and examined the NEX-7's RAW output closely using a large series of test images that I shot. I've looked closely at the OM-D and I used a GF1 exclusively for a two week vacation. Bottom line: Anyone who can't use the NEX's or the Fuji X's or an OM-D or a GX1 to make good images is a wanker. They're all quite similar in performance and all can be made to work for most sorts of general photography if you're even halfway competent.
We are in a golden age. It is too easy to forget that all of these cameras are amazingly capable for their size and price.
If you need markedly better file quality you'll be wanting a D800 or something bigger. Yes, it really is that simple. The technical differences between the cameras under discussion in this thread are incremental. Maybe half a generation of sensor development.
Last week I was watching David Alan Harvey put up big exhibition prints made by Mike Courvoisier, up to 40" x 60." They were made with GF1, D700, D800, M9, M6, Mamiya 7. All looked fantastic, though of course the D800 and Ma7 prints were a (technical) cut above the rest: more detail and tonal subtlety than the others. N.b.: the prints expected to bring the highest price were shot with the GF1. Let that be a lesson to us all.
DAH is currently shooting mainly with a Panasonic GX1 and a Leica S2, and his Mamiya 7 is still in use as well.
robert blu
quiet photographer
OM-D or Fuji X... this is my problem ! I'll end in buying another (cheaper) film camera
Seriously I'm in the market for one of these, I have small hands and I like to travel light so Oly should be the obvious choice. But the OVF of the X-pro1 is interesting. And the size of the xe1 is not so bigger than the oly...if I only could compare them in my hands and at my eye....
robert
Seriously I'm in the market for one of these, I have small hands and I like to travel light so Oly should be the obvious choice. But the OVF of the X-pro1 is interesting. And the size of the xe1 is not so bigger than the oly...if I only could compare them in my hands and at my eye....
robert
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Robert, I've owned both and the X-Pro1 feels a lot bigger to me than the X-E1. The X-E1 is just a bit smaller than an M6, a bit bigger than a CLE. Close to the size of a GF1. To me this is THE sweet spot in camera size and weight. The X-Pro1 is the size of an M9. Frankly, that's too big for my taste. Just a bit too big, but over the line. I'm currently using the XE-1. With the XF 18/2 I sometimes use a Zeiss optical finder. To my surprise I prefer this arrangement to the X-Pro. I've been using it to shoot nighttime basketball, close-in. Basketball pictures were the first things I ever shot for money, back in the film dark ages (HP5 at EI1600 with fill strobe off a bounce card, on deadline... wahoo!).
These new cameras are genuinely remarkable. The OM-D and GX1, the NEX-7, the X-E1... all a little different, all awesome. Some differences in lens lineups, some differences in control layout and viewing methods. None of these a big deal now that there are good fast medium-to-wide lenses for all systems. The Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX is tremendous (if a bit bulky), as is the Panasonic 20/1.7. I'm a huge fan of the Fuji 18/2 and prefer its slightly wider FoV.
XF 18/2, ambient light, manual exposure, 1/250, f/3.2, ISO3200... JPEG straight-out-of-camera (over-sharpening courtesy of flickr)... and the RAW files look great in color, too.
These new cameras are genuinely remarkable. The OM-D and GX1, the NEX-7, the X-E1... all a little different, all awesome. Some differences in lens lineups, some differences in control layout and viewing methods. None of these a big deal now that there are good fast medium-to-wide lenses for all systems. The Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX is tremendous (if a bit bulky), as is the Panasonic 20/1.7. I'm a huge fan of the Fuji 18/2 and prefer its slightly wider FoV.
XF 18/2, ambient light, manual exposure, 1/250, f/3.2, ISO3200... JPEG straight-out-of-camera (over-sharpening courtesy of flickr)... and the RAW files look great in color, too.
robert blu
quiet photographer
@semilog: great shot! And thanks for your suggestions, grazie!
robert
robert
Muggins
Junk magnet
I'm afraid I saw the title of the thread and immediately thought of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h7WZtZgszc
(that is a great shot, semilog!)
Adrian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h7WZtZgszc
(that is a great shot, semilog!)
Adrian
rbelyell
Well-known
ive had an ep2 and naturally went to the omd assuming i would love it. i also had an x100 at the same time. i agree all these new cams/systems are in certain ways amazing, but are clearly aimed at different goals. as a piece of hardware--IS, touch screen focus/shooting, weatherproofing etc--you cannot beat the omd. if those things are ones primary concerns, nothing beats the omd. but its IQ was to me noticeably inferior to the x100 in the world of AF, and to my lowly 12mp gxr using rf lenses. my belief is the lack of AA filter vaults the IQ of other cameras noticeably over the oly, though i remain a fan of the company.
so if IQ was my paramount concern, and i wanted an AF system, hands down i'd choose fuji, whose rendition and quality lens lineup beat sonys. but if i wanted to use the system also with rf lenses, i myself think the only choice is the gxr (or the much more expensive M line). to use all or in part with slr lenses, fuji or sony line, depending on ones preference of the 'look' of the final product. imo the fuji just has a lovely color rendition, handles highlights better, and b&w is the best most film like ive seen.
at the end of the day sly stone said it best: different strokes for different folks.
tony
so if IQ was my paramount concern, and i wanted an AF system, hands down i'd choose fuji, whose rendition and quality lens lineup beat sonys. but if i wanted to use the system also with rf lenses, i myself think the only choice is the gxr (or the much more expensive M line). to use all or in part with slr lenses, fuji or sony line, depending on ones preference of the 'look' of the final product. imo the fuji just has a lovely color rendition, handles highlights better, and b&w is the best most film like ive seen.
at the end of the day sly stone said it best: different strokes for different folks.
tony
retnull
Well-known
OM-D vs XE1 -- the question that keeps us all awake at night. ;-)
It should be mentioned, the other factor is cost. I was leaning towards the Fuji (beautiful image samples on the web). But then, Olympus had a brief sale on their online store, and I was able to get an OM-D refurb at, well, half of list price.
I've had bad luck with digital cameras in general, they always seem to last only a year before they break or I get fed up with them. So for me the cheaper camera is the better camera: film is my main interest, anyway.
So, this year, I'll suffer to endure the lowly OM-D, knowing my images are inferior to the sublime Fuji, oh the agony of it, how can I bear to press the shutter. ;-) But then there's always next year...
It should be mentioned, the other factor is cost. I was leaning towards the Fuji (beautiful image samples on the web). But then, Olympus had a brief sale on their online store, and I was able to get an OM-D refurb at, well, half of list price.
I've had bad luck with digital cameras in general, they always seem to last only a year before they break or I get fed up with them. So for me the cheaper camera is the better camera: film is my main interest, anyway.
So, this year, I'll suffer to endure the lowly OM-D, knowing my images are inferior to the sublime Fuji, oh the agony of it, how can I bear to press the shutter. ;-) But then there's always next year...